The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to determining ex officio.

A. In the first instance of the facts charged, the prosecutor: “Article 35 of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law to the facts charged in the instant case; “The Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Gwangju District Court on November 2, 201 and completed the execution of the sentence on May 1, 2012 by the Gwangju District Court.”

The judgment of the court below is no longer able to maintain as it is, inasmuch as the amendment of the bill of amendment was applied for the addition of “each addition,” and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court.

B. In addition, the record of this case reveals the following facts: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to one year and four months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Gwangju District Court on November 6, 2014; (b) the judgment became final and conclusive on June 26, 2015; (c) the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor at the Gwangju District Court on September 3, 2015; and (b) the judgment became final and conclusive on January 15, 2016; and (c) the criminal record of the above paragraph (1) can be recognized as a criminal committed prior to the date the judgment for the criminal record of the above paragraph

Therefore, since both the crime of this case and each crime of this case for which the above judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of this case shall be determined after considering equity and the mitigation or exemption of punishment, and examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 2008). However, the court below did not state only the above (1) criminal records, and did not state the remaining criminal records pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, since it did not state the above (1) criminal records and the court below did not state the remaining criminal records, and after examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment of this case, the punishment of this case shall be imposed.