The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of one year of imprisonment with prison labor on February 6, 2015 in the Incheon District Court Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court on the following grounds: (1) on June 20, 2015 (hereinafter “final judgment”); (2) on August 28, 2015, the Defendant was found to have committed the crime except for punishment of larceny on April 15, 2015; and (4) on May 4, 2016 (hereinafter “final judgment”); and (3) on May 15, 2015, only the Defendant was found to have committed the crime of larceny after the final judgment became final and conclusive on June 15, 2015, with the exception of punishment of larceny on April 15, 2015; and (4) on May 15, 2015 (hereinafter “final judgment”).

According to the above facts, larceny of April 15, 2015, among the criminal facts recognized in the final and conclusive judgment No. 2, was committed prior to the date of final and conclusive judgment No. 1, and thus, cannot be judged simultaneously with the instant crime committed on December 7, 2015, which was committed after the date of final and conclusive judgment No. 1. 2, and thus, the relationship of concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established. (2) Of the criminal facts recognized in the final and conclusive judgment No. 2, all of the following crimes except larceny of April 15, 2015 and the instant crimes were committed after the date of final and conclusive judgment No. 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the relationship of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act should be determined by taking into account equity with the case where the judgment is simultaneously rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below is no longer able to be maintained, since the application of the law of the court below did not deal with the concurrent crimes.

3. Thus, the court below's decision is reversed ex officio.