The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence shall not be imposed or the sentence shall not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity with the case where judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months on July 17, 2013 to imprisonment with prison labor on the site of Suwon District Court for the crime of attempted fire-prevention of the main building (hereinafter referred to as “the first final judgment”) and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter referred to as “the first final judgment”), and on August 20, 2015, the said judgment was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for an occupational embezzlement and became final and conclusive on August 28, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the second final judgment”), and each of the above final judgments was a crime committed before the first final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the lower court, despite its judgment, erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to equity and the second judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal of the judgment below, and it is again decided as follows.