The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant to the penalty (4 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

(a) The term “a crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” in relevant legal principles constitutes concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive among concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 39(1) of

Meanwhile, in light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act, where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the punishment shall not be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity and equity, or the punishment shall not be mitigated or exempted.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948 Decided October 27, 2011 and Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295 Decided September 27, 2012, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do9295, Sept. 27, 20

According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daegu District Court on September 23, 201 and 1 year of suspended execution, and the above judgment was finalized on October 1, 2011. ② On September 20, 2012, the above judgment was finalized on March 22, 2013 after being sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment for fraud at the above court on September 20, 2012. ② The crime of the preceding judgment was committed before the final judgment ( October 1, 2011).

(2) As to the instant crime, the lower court sentenced the instant punishment by taking account of equity with the case where the instant crime was committed before the judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. However, as seen earlier, the instant crime was committed after the final and conclusive date of the judgment, and (2) the crime committed before and after the final and conclusive date of the judgment with the previous department was committed, and thus, the instant crime and the crime committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment was committed.