The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

(a) "A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall be deemed concurrent crimes prescribed by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among concurrent crimes provided for in Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act has not been adjudicated and a crime for which judgment has become final

Meanwhile, in light of the latter part of Article 37 and the language, legislative purport, etc. of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, in cases where a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence shall not be imposed, or a sentence shall not be mitigated or exempted, in consideration of equity and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do948, Oct. 27, 201; 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012).

1) On February 18, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and eight months with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Suwon method Board, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 9, 2013. ② On December 21, 2016, the same court was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 1, 2017; ③ on February 23, 2018, the same court was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud and became final and conclusive on the same day.

2) The crime of criminal record ② is the crime committed before the day when the judgment of the previous offense became final and conclusive, and the crime of this case is ① interest above the day after the day when the judgment of the previous offense became final and conclusive, ③ interest above the day before the day when the judgment of the previous offense becomes final and conclusive.

3) The lower court sentenced the crime of this case (2) and (3) after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which was committed before the day when the judgment of the previous conviction became final and conclusive; (2) pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the said crime was sentenced in consideration of equity in the case where a judgment was rendered simultaneously with each of the preceding crimes.

(c).