The judgment below

Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning each crime of "2013 Highest 2837" and "2014 Highest 1381" shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendant for each of the crimes of “2013 Highest 2837” and “2014 Highest 1381” is too unreasonable.

B. It is unfair that the sentence imposed on the Defendant (each of the crimes of "2013 Highest 2837" and "2014 Highest 1381": Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and the crime of "2014 Highest 2686" as stated in the judgment of the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the part concerning the crime of "2014 Highest 2686" as stated in the judgment of the court below and the reasons for sentencing of the court below on the instant case’s records and arguments, the court below’s sentence on this part of the crime is too uneasible and unreasonable, and thus, the prosecutor’s allegation of unjust sentencing in this part is without merit.

B. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant prior to the determination of the part on each of the crimes of "2013 Highest 2837" and "2014 Highest 1381" in the judgment of the court below.

1) According to the records, on November 23, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of fraud, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court on January 23, 2007, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 11, 2008. On June 9, 2008, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a term of imprisonment for a term of offer as a bribe offering crime, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 17, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “transfer final and conclusive judgment”).

() On February 10, 2011, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced a two-year grace period to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court, and filed an appeal to the appeal. However, on February 3, 2012, the dismissal judgment was rendered on February 11, 201 and the said judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “former final and conclusive judgment”).

In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and judgment shall be rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act