The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (3 million won in penalty) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. "A crime for which judgment of imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, considering equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive at the same time, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence shall not be imposed, or mitigated or exempted from such punishment, by taking into account equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to evidence duly adopted and examined, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 months before the final and conclusive judgment, etc. 20.

According to the above facts, each of the crimes of this case does not constitute a crime committed before the final and conclusive judgment No. 1, and the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 constitutes a case where the judgment cannot be pronounced simultaneously with each of the crimes of this case committed after the final and conclusive judgment No. 1 is finalized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that sentenced each of the crimes of this case in consideration of equity in the case where the second judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime of final judgment by applying Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.