The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Relevant legal principles: “a crime for which a judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive” constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, a crime for which a judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes and a crime for which a final judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which a judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with the crime for which a judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence shall not be imposed or mitigated or mitigated in consideration of equity when a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014).

6. The fact that the judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment No. 2”); on the other hand, the crime of the final and conclusive judgment No. 2 is acknowledged to have been committed around June 5, 2014, which was before the date the final and conclusive judgment No. 1 became final and conclusive; thus, the crime of the final and conclusive judgment No. 2 constitutes a case where the sentence cannot be imposed concurrently with the crime of the final and conclusive judgment committed after the date the final and conclusive judgment No.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act that sentenced punishment in consideration of equity with the case where the second final judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the instant crime committed after the date of final judgment became final and conclusive, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the court below's decision is erroneous.