The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

If an individual criminal act, which is a single comprehensive crime, is committed over the period before and after a final judgment of a different kind, it is not divided into two crimes, but completed at the final criminal act which is a final judgment after the final judgment.

(2) The crime for which a judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive constitutes concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this case, the crime for which a judgment has not been rendered and the crime for which a judgment has not been rendered has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced in consideration of equity and the case for which a judgment has become final and conclusive. If 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 the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot establish concurrent crimes, and the crime for which a judgment has not yet become final and conclusive should not be sentenced to punishment for such crime.

(2) According to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for six months at the District Court on May 27, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “final judgment”), which became final and conclusive on September 10, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “final and conclusive judgment”), and (2) on February 9, 2017, the same court was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and on May 20, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “second final and conclusive judgment”); and (3) on January 29, 2018, the same court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months and with the final and conclusive judgment on January 30, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “final and conclusive judgment”), and (4) a final and conclusive judgment on January 30, 2018.