The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three months and by imprisonment for two crimes as stated in the judgment of the court.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As examined below, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

First of all, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of records and the facts presented to this court.

① On December 27, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years, etc. for six months of imprisonment due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) at the Ansan District Court’s Ansan Branch on December 27, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 4, 2013.

(1) On April 26, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on August 26, 2013 in the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch of Daejeon District Court for the purpose of fraud, etc.; and on May 4, 2013, the Defendant is still under a suspended sentence of two years.

(2) However, the crime of the second judgment is committed from August 2012 to September 2012, 2012, which was before the first judgment became final and conclusive on January 4, 2013.

③ The crime of fraud of September 15, 2013 and September 17, 2013 of the instant case is a crime committed after the second judgment became final and conclusive. The instant crime of fabrication, etc. of private documents dated April 28, 2013 is a crime committed before the second judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Therefore, even though the crime of forging Forgery, etc., of April 28, 2013 of the instant case was committed before the second judgment became final, it was not possible to sentence a single sentence after being tried at the same time as the crime of the second judgment.

(This is because the crime of the second judgment was committed before the first judgment became final and conclusive). In such a case, the crime of the second judgment as of April 28, 2013 and the crime of the forgery of a letter of apology as of April 28, 2013 cannot be established as concurrent crimes between the crime of the second judgment and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment cannot be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity and the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1)

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948 Decided October 27, 2011, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295 Decided September 27, 2012, etc.). Meanwhile, the instant case was dated April 28, 2013.