The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced the defendants (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence in five months of imprisonment, and one year and eight hours of suspended sentence in five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination ex officio (as to the part of the lower judgment, the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive) constitutes concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this case, considering the case where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is to be concurrently sentenced and equity, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with the 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 exempted in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment has already become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to the records of this case: ① Defendant A obtained a final and conclusive judgment from the Incheon District Court on August 26, 2016 to be sentenced to imprisonment with labor for not more than 27 months.

Nevertheless, Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act applies to the crime of this case (the crime of false teachers) committed after the first final and conclusive judgment with respect to Defendant A.