The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the language, legislative purport, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39(1) of the same Act, where a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and sentence of punishment or punishment shall not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced from around 16, May 16, 2015 to a suspended sentence of five months for acquisition of goods at the Daejeon District Court on May 8, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 16, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “final judgment”), and the final and conclusive judgment of the Daejeon High Court on February 16, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “final judgment”).

Although the instant crime was committed on October 30, 2015, prior to the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive, the crime of the final and conclusive judgment No. 2, as seen earlier, was committed prior to the final and conclusive judgment No. 1. As such, the instant crime committed after the final and conclusive judgment constitutes a case where the first final and conclusive judgment cannot be rendered simultaneously with the crime of the final and conclusive judgment from the beginning, and thus, the relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established. When a sentence is imposed on a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among the concurrent crimes, Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which stipulates that the relevant crime and the crime of the final and conclusive judgment shall be considered at the same time as the case where the

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of this case.