The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant is a crime of the 2015 Godan844, 2015 Godan889, 2015 Godan970 in the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Since each of the frauds in the 2015 Godan915 case as indicated in the judgment of the court below is related to the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of fraud finalized on August 29, 2015, each of the crime of fraud under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court below rendered a separate sentence on August 29, 2015 with regard to the remaining crimes committed after the judgment became final and conclusive, the court below rendered a single sentence in combination with the remaining crimes. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The offense for which a judgment to be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the offense committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive falls under concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a sentence shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where the offense among concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the offense for which a judgment has not become final and conclusive

According to the records, on August 21, 2015, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for fraud in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on August 21, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 29, 2015.

Therefore, each crime of fraud in the case of 2015 Godan915, which was committed from April 30, 2015 to August 4, 2015, which was prior to the conclusion of the above judgment among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, is related to the crime for which the above judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the court below should have imposed a single punishment in consideration of the equity between the crime for each of the above crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the case for which the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and have imposed a separate punishment for each of the remaining

Nevertheless, the lower court did not render a separate sentence as above, and Article 37 of the Criminal Act.