The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, Defendant B’s each of the instant crimes committed by Defendant B, which became final and conclusive as of October 29, 2015, and the relationship of concurrent crimes with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment, taking into account equity with the case where a judgment is rendered at the same time, pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (defendant A: one year of imprisonment, and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Legal principles 1) “A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” falls under concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive shall be sentenced in consideration of equity and the same.

Meanwhile, in light of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the language, legislative purport, etc. of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that the sentence cannot be imposed or the sentence cannot be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). 2) According to the health unit of this case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant B was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court on April 4, 2012, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on September 6, 201, and the judgment separately from this, Seoul District Court’s imprisonment with prison labor for a period of suspension of execution from October 16, 2014.