The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced the defendant (one month of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

“A crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive at the same time, a sentence shall be imposed. In such cases, where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence shall not be imposed concurrently or mitigated, taking into account equity and equity in cases where a judgment is to be rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor at the Central District Court for 10 months and 2 years, and the final judgment of June 16, 16.

The relevant part of the facts charged in the instant case is indicated as “the Jeonju District Court’s Eup support,” but this is a clerical error in the Jeonju District Court’s judgment.

(hereinafter the above judgment was “No. 2 final and conclusive judgment,” and each fraud in the final and conclusive judgment No. 2 is recognized as having been committed from August 20, 2012 to March 14, 2014, prior to the date when the final and conclusive judgment No. 1 was rendered. 3. Therefore, each fraud in the final and conclusive judgment No. 2 is the date when the final and conclusive judgment No. 1 becomes final and conclusive.