The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided and against himself/herself; (b) the victim does not want punishment against the Defendant; and (c) the crime of this case was committed after the end of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, legislative intent, etc., if the crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the Defendant may not be sentenced to punishment, or mitigated or exempted from punishment, by taking into account the case of concurrent judgment and equity in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 months on or after December 19, 2014; and (b) the Defendant shall be recognized as having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 years, but not more than 16 months on April 9, 216.

Thus, the crime of this case (the date of the crime, June 8, 2016) and (2) The crime of this case constitutes ① the crime committed before and after the judgment of the previous conviction, and thus, it cannot be judged simultaneously. However, the crime of this case and ③ the crime of this case can be judged simultaneously with the crime of this case, which constitutes a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, there is a need to consider equity in the case of being tried at the same time.

However, the defendant is identical.