The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B, M, andO shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

N’s appeal and the Prosecutor’s Defendant B, M.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant N (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the Defendants (Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, H, H, L, and M, one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, two years of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, three years of suspended execution, three years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of suspended execution, three years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of suspended execution).

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio (Defendant B, M, andO) prior to the Supreme Court’s decision on the grounds of appeal.

1) “A crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive” falls under concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this case, in light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not been rendered becomes final and conclusive concurrently with the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence shall not be imposed, or that the sentence shall not be mitigated or remitted, considering equity and the case for which judgment has become final and conclusive at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do948, Oct. 27, 201; 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012).