The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of three million won) declared by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

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

The term "a crime for which judgment to be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall be deemed concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime which has not been adjudicated among concurrent crimes and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive

Meanwhile, in light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, 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 the punishment shall not be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity and equity in the case of a judgment

(2) According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on July 23, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “final judgment”), and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 8, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “final judgment 1”); and (2) The Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of execution for four months in imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on December 12, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “final judgment”), and on December 20, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “second final judgment”). The criminal facts recognized in the final judgment become final and conclusive on October 7, 2014, and each of the final and conclusive judgments cannot be recognized since the Defendant committed a final and conclusive judgment at the same time after the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a sentence with regard to the instant crime committed after the date of final judgment of the first instance, taking into account the equity between the case and the case of a final judgment of the second instance under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.