The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of this case by misapprehending the legal principles was committed while the appellate court in the Daegu District Court case No. 2018 Godan5785 decided September 20, 2019 (Seoul District Court 2019No1362) was pending in trial. Thus, the punishment for the crime of this case by applying the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 of the Criminal Act and the crime of this case at the same time shall be mitigated or exempted, taking into account equity and equity.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the language and legislative intent of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act, where a crime not yet adjudicated could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive, the relationship between concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence cannot be imposed or the sentence may not be mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9948, Oct. 27, 201). 2) According to the evidence examined by the lower court, the following facts may be revealed. (A) The Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud from the vice branch of the Daegu District Court on August 8, 2018 and the said judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “final judgment 1”) on December 21, 2018.

(B) On April 9, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Daegu District Court (the crime of December 4, 2018), and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 20, 2019.

(C) The Defendant committed the instant crime from June 13, 2019 to June 20, 2019, respectively. 3) The instant crime was committed after the first final and conclusive judgment. The crime of the second final and conclusive judgment was committed before the date of final and conclusive judgment. Thus, the instant crime constitutes a case where the first final and conclusive judgment was committed simultaneously with the crime of the second final and conclusive judgment.