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 Defendant supplied 8 units of the Hogeming Syming Center (hereinafter “No. 8 units”) pursuant to the exchange contract entered in the facts charged with the victimized company (hereinafter “instant contract”). At the time of the said contract, the Defendant also owned 10 units of the Myming Center for Hogeming (hereinafter “No. 10 units”). However, the Defendant did not supply 10 units due to the unilateral refusal of receipt by the victimized company, and did not have the intent to defraud the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the determination of guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act for ex officio determination, in cases where a crime for which no judgment has yet to be rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence shall not be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equity, or that the sentence shall not

(2) According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for two years at Seoul High Court on April 11, 2013 (hereinafter “final judgment”), and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 19, 2013 (hereinafter “final judgment”), and (2) on May 28, 2015, the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud (hereinafter “final judgment”) on June 5, 2015 and became final and conclusive on June 3, 2015 (hereinafter “second final and conclusive judgment”); and (3) since the crime of final and conclusive judgment of the second final judgment is recognized as a lower crime prior to the date on which the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, the crime of this case committed after the date on which the first final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, and the crime of first final and conclusive judgment was committed from the beginning on the date on which the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, it is not possible.