The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. "A crime for which judgment of imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, considering equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive at the same time and where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, punishment shall not be imposed concurrently, or mitigated or exempted from such punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant cannot be found to have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 years and a final and conclusive judgment of not more than 30 years which became final and conclusive after the final and conclusive judgment was rendered on September 28, 2010.

However, the lower court’s determination of the punishment of this case by taking account of the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 and equity pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to the instant crime committed after the date of final and conclusive judgment No. 1 was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

3...