The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the judgment of six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and the judgment of two years of suspended execution becomes final and conclusive as of May 19, 2018, and the crime of this case occurred on or around May 12, 2018, which was before the fixed date, the judgment of the court below omitted judgment as to ex post facto competition, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

(B) On February 15, 2019, the appellate brief No. 3(e) of the Defendant’s defense counsel submitted on February 15, 2019, the Defendant’s grounds for appeal are as follows: (a) the details written in the Defendant’s criminal records in the “criminal records” column and the supplementary appellate brief.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records, on January 17, 2018, the Incheon District Court sentenced the Defendant to a sentence of two-year suspension of execution on the grounds of the obstruction of performance of official duties (Seoul District Court 2017Kadan8307). The prosecutor appealed, but the Incheon District Court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal on May 11, 2018. The above judgment became final and conclusive on May 19, 2018 due to the prosecutor’s failure to file an appeal, and on the other hand, the date and time of the crime as stated in the facts charged in the instant facts charged are recognized as of May 12, 2018.

Therefore, the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties against the defendant is one of the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with each of the above crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive, and thus, the sentence should have been imposed in consideration of equity in the case of judgment at the same time.

Nevertheless, the lower court, without considering this, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. If so, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair sentencing, and the following decision is rendered again after

[Discied Judgment] Criminal facts.