The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s judgment was rendered on September 15, 201 after having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Suwon District Court for three years and six months, which became final and conclusive on September 15, 2010. The Seoul Northern District Court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, which became final and conclusive on July 3, 2015. Although each of the above crimes against the Defendant, for which the instant fraud and judgment against the Defendant became final and conclusive, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (seven months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to the punishment of fraud and the punishment of breach of trust for three years and six months from August 12, 2010.

9. The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 22, 2013 (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment”). On October 10, 2013, the above judgment (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment No. 2”) became final and conclusive upon being sentenced to four months of imprisonment for fraud in the court. On June 25, 2015, this court was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for embezzlement in the court on July 3, 2015 (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment”) and became final and conclusive on July 3, 2015 after being sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for embezzlement in the above judgment (hereinafter “final and conclusive judgment”). Since each of the above judgments becomes final and conclusive, the instant fraud against the Defendant is in a concurrent relationship with each of the above judgments, and both the crime of embezzlement and the crime of embezzlement, Article 37 of the Criminal Act Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, taking into account equity with the case where a final and conclusive judgment is rendered at the same time, the lower judgment is not subject to Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. If so, the appeal against the misunderstanding of the above legal principles by the defendant is with merit, and thus, the judgment on the defendant's argument of sentencing is unfair.