The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the crime No. 1(b) of the 2018 Highest 2415 case, the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one month.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence adopted by the court below, ① the defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Suwon District Court on November 2, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 10, 2017, which became final and conclusive on October 12, 2018, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 3, 2019 upon being sentenced to five years of imprisonment on October 12, 2018; ② the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor at the Suwon District Court on February 7, 2018, and became final and conclusive on February 15, 2018.

Therefore, among the crimes in the holding of the lower judgment, each of the remaining crimes except for the crime of Article 1-b of the 2018 Godan2415 Case (i.e., the crime of injury to victim D) (i., the crime of injury on November 12, 2017) is in a concurrent crime under Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of fraud for which a new judgment has become final and conclusive (i.e., the crime of Article 2018 Godan2415 Case 1-b, which was committed after November 10, 2017, which was the final and conclusive date of the judgment subject to new judgment, and cannot be judged simultaneously with the above new judgment, cannot be deemed to be a concurrent crime under Article 37 of the Criminal Act with a crime of fraud for which the said new judgment has become final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Do20698, Jun. 20, 2019).

If so, pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the lower court should have separately determined and sentenced the punishment in consideration of the equity between the crime of forging a private signature which became final and conclusive and the crime of forging a private signature which became final and conclusive with respect to each of the crimes listed in Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the other crimes listed in Article 2018 or 2415. However, the lower court should have separately determined and sentenced the punishment for each of the crimes listed in Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.