The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. The sentencing of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act for ex officio determination, in cases where a crime for which no judgment has yet to be rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the punishment shall not be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity and equality, or that the punishment shall not be mitigated

(2) On September 28, 2012, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced 2012Do9295 Decided September 5, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948 Decided October 27, 201, etc.). Comprehensively taking into account the health care of the instant case and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, ① the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year on January 30, 2009 for the purpose of fraud on August 30, 2009 and became final and conclusive on February 7, 2009; ② the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud, probation, 120 hours for community service order at the Seoul Western District Court on August 28, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 5, 2012; ② the fraud of the instant case was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Western District Court on September 16, 2012, and the Defendant was sentenced to a probation order of the said case.

According to the above facts, the above facts are as follows: (2) The above facts are as follows: (3) The crimes committed before the judgment of the previous conviction becomes final and conclusive; and (2) the crime of fraud of this case constitutes cases where the judgment of the previous conviction was not possible concurrently with the crimes for which the judgment of the

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which determined the punishment on the premise that the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are recognized with regard to the instant fraud is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.