The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The previous conviction of the crime committed by the lower court against the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine was finalized on August 21, 2017. However, it is unlawful for the lower court to render a separate sentence, not one punishment, for the first and second crimes committed by the Defendant prior to the above date.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a crime of No. 1 in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, and a crime of No. 2 in its holding: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the misapprehension of the legal doctrine of the Defendant’s assertion, and the crime committed before the judgment of having been rendered ex officio or higher punishment with respect to a repeated crime and the crime committed before the said judgment became final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes after the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is established. On the other hand, the relationship of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is established among each

Nevertheless, the lower court, on August 21, 2017, committed a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) by November 26, 2016 as indicated in Article 1 of the lower judgment’s holding that the crime committed by the Defendant constitutes a concurrent crime of obstruction of business established by the lower court on August 21, 2017 and the crime of obstruction of business after

The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act applies only to Article 39(1). As to the obstruction of the performance of official duties by the defendant committed before August 21, 2017 as of July 12, 2017 as of July 21, 2017, Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 37 of the Criminal Act are not in the relation of concurrent crimes.

In light of the above, a separate sentence was imposed on each of the above crimes.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Then, it is considered ex officio.

The lower court deemed that the crime specified in Article 2 of the lower judgment’s holding constituted a repeated crime, and applied Article 35 of the Criminal Act to this, aggravated repeated crime was committed.

According to the records, the crime described in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court below was committed on July 12, 2017, and the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Southern District Court on February 2, 2017.