The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, where a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with a 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 concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and the sentence cannot 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

The record reveals that: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on March 17, 2017 for ten months; (b) two years of probation; and (c) 40 hours of probation and violent therapy; and (b) the judgment became final and conclusive on August 26, 2017; and (c) the offense of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which committed around February 11, 2017 at the Seoul Central District Court on September 13, 2017, with imprisonment with prison labor for six months and two years of suspension of execution; and (d) from around October 21, 2017 to October 21, 2017 to October 21, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than six months and for two years of suspension of execution to be determined by the said District Court on September 21, 2017 to October 21, 2017.

However, the instant crime was committed on November 4, 2016, November 7, 2016, and from January 10, 2017 to July 11, 2017. The instant crime was committed before the judgment of the previous crime became final and conclusive, and (3) the instant crime was committed after the final and conclusive judgment of the previous crime; and (4) the instant crime was committed after the final and conclusive judgment of the previous crime, and thus, the instant crime was committed only ①, ② the crime of the previous crime and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and (3) the said crime was committed after the final and conclusive judgment of the previous crime.