The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The punishment of one deliberation (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable;

2. We examine 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, a sentence shall be imposed on the relevant crime. 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 may not be imposed concurrently or mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity in cases where a final and conclusive judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1203, May 16, 2014; 201Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012).

The Defendant’s instant fraud was committed between the date when the first and second final judgment became final and conclusive and the date when the second final judgment became final and conclusive. Therefore, the instant fraud and the second final and conclusive judgment could not be adjudicated at the same time from the beginning. Therefore, the first instance court rendered a sentence in consideration of equity in cases where the instant fraud is to be adjudicated simultaneously with the second final and conclusive judgment.