The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

In the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the term “a crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” shall be deemed concurrent crimes. Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that if there is a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes, the punishment for such crime may be mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity between the crime and the crime for which judgment has not become final

In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of each of the above provisions, if a crime for which no judgment has yet become final and conclusive cannot 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 equality, or that the punishment shall not be mitigated or exempted.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant is sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months on November 6, 2013 for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) at the Southern Branch of the Gwangju District Court branch on November 6, 2013, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on November 14, 2013 (Article 1) and (2) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Gwangju District Court branch on July 16, 2014, and three years for a suspended sentence of one year for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (Article 209Do948), and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on July 24, 2014 (Article 2); and (3) the instant crime is a crime after the final and conclusive judgment; and (1) the judgment becomes final and conclusive on July 24, 2014 (Article 2).

Therefore, the crime of this case does not fall under the case where it can be judged concurrently with the crime of judgment No. 2. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

3.