The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance is committed before the judgment of the defendant who was sentenced to a two-year imprisonment at the Gwangju District Court for fraud, which was sentenced to a two-year imprisonment at the Gwangju District Court, becomes final and conclusive on February 26, 2009. However, in addition to the above previous conviction, the defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspension of execution and a two-year suspension of social service work at the Gwangju District Court for fraud, and the judgment of January 11, 2007 became final and conclusive on February 26, 2009, and thus, the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive on January 11, 2007 was committed before the judgment became final and conclusive, and thus the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance was committed at the same time.

Therefore, Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act which provides that when a sentence is imposed on a concurrent crime for which judgment has not been rendered, the crime and the crime for which judgment have become final and conclusive shall be considered at the same time when a judgment is rendered, there is no room to apply this provision, but it is so.

Thus, as the final judgment of February 26, 2009 was not rendered, Article 38 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to apply to the crime of this case, as the crime of this case was committed before the final judgment became final and conclusive, and the crime of Article 2 and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among the crimes of this case, as the crime of this case was committed after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive.

In other words, between the crime No. 1 and the crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance, which became final and conclusive on February 26, 2009, and the crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the crime No. 3 in the judgment of the court of first instance cannot establish a concurrent crime relationship before and after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and eventually, the punishment shall be separately determined and sentenced for each crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 70Do2271, Dec. 22, 1970; 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010, etc.). The judgment below to the same effect is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to each crime.