The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months.

(b).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. We examine the Defendants’ grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment.

A. According to the records on Defendant A, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on September 17, 2008 to six months of imprisonment for fraud in the Changwon District Court was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on January 29, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 29, 2009, as well as the crime committed around December 18, 2005, which was prior to the date the above judgment became final and conclusive, and was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution at the Seoul East Eastern District Court on August 18, 2011. The fact that the judgment became final and conclusive on November 24, 201 can be recognized. As such, in relation to each of the above crimes and the crimes of this case, each of the above crimes for which judgment became final and conclusive, the lower court determined the sentence after considering equity with cases where the judgment becomes final and conclusive pursuant to the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence.

B. Part 1 of the Defendant’s criminal facts of this case against Defendant B provide that the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 250 million from Victim E from January 2006 to February 2006. However, the lower court applied Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act to the crime of this case by applying the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the crime of this case is in the concurrent relationship between fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive on June 9, 2011 and the crime of this case by taking into account equity with the case where the judgment was rendered at the same time with the case where the judgment was rendered. (2) The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act provides that “the crime for which a judgment to be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before the said judgment has become final and conclusive” and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the crime of this case is a concurrent crime