The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Among the crimes of fraud against the defendant D, each of the attached Table 1 to 5 of the crimes committed against the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (an offense in the [Attachment 1-5] and the offense in the [Attachment 1411] and the [Attachment 2017] and the [Attachment 1545] of the [Attachment 2017 [Attachment 1] and the [Attachment 1411] are too unreasonable. It is so unfair that the sentence is too unreasonable that the period of suspension of execution is 2 years of imprisonment and the protection is observed in June, and that the crimes in the [Attachment 2017] and the [Attachment 1411] of the [Attachment 2017 [Attachment 141] and the [Attachment 1809] and the [Attachment 1945] of the [Attachment 2017 [Attachment 141].

2. The lower court rendered ex officio judgment on the ground that the crime of fraud, etc. as indicated in the judgment, which became final and conclusive, and the fraud committed with respect to H, constitutes a concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of fraud committed with respect to each of the above crimes pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that the crime of fraud, etc. as indicated in the judgment, and the fraud committed with respect to Defendant D constitutes a concurrent crime after Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act,

However, according to the records, it is recognized that the Defendant’s fraud with H was committed on January 24, 2017 (i.e., a clerical error in the indictment and the judgment of the court below on January 24, 2016). Therefore, since the Defendant’s fraud with H is a crime after the final judgment on the crime of fraud, etc. ( July 7, 2016), the relationship between fraud, etc. for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the crime of fraud with H cannot be established between Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of fraud with respect to which judgment has not been rendered, and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which provides that if a sentence is imposed on a crime for which judgment has not been rendered, it shall be considered at the same time as a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive, and that there is no room to apply this provision.

Nevertheless, the lower court sentenced the Defendant’s crime of fraud against H in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which was finalized on July 7, 2016 under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, by taking into account the equity with the case of the judgment at the same time. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting

3. Conclusion.