The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The crime No. 1-A of the judgment of the defendant is a crime of 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor, and the crime of 1-B of the judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the crime No. 1-A. as indicated in the judgment of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and the crime No. 1-b. as indicated in the judgment of the court below and the crime No. 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (Article 1-1(a) of the judgment of the defendant is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In light of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the language, legislative intent, etc. of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a 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 relationship of concurrent crimes cannot be established after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and that the sentence cannot be imposed or the sentence cannot be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and cases where judgment is to be rendered at the same time pursuant to Article

If several crimes which have not yet been adjudicated were committed before and after the final judgment became final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed that Article 38 of the Criminal Act is applicable to the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among the several crimes, as if there is no final judgment which became final and conclusive, since Article 38 of the Criminal Act is recognized as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the punishment shall be separately determined and sentenced for each crime committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the foregoing legal principles, according to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced two years in prison at the Government District Court of the Republic of Korea on October 15, 2010 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 23th of the same month (hereinafter referred to as "the final and conclusive judgment") on the 10th of the same month, which became final and conclusive on the 20th of December 21, 2012012.