The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. The grounds for appeal by the defendant are too heavy, and the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor are too minor for the original judgment.

2. On February 12, 2015, the lower court ex officio examined the following: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years by imprisonment at the Seoul Western District Court on February 12, 2015; and (b) the offense, such as fraud, which became final and conclusive on November 26, 2015, was in the relationship of single concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act

On the other hand, the punishment was determined in consideration of equity in the case where the above crimes were judged simultaneously.

However, on June 14, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months for a violation of the Military Service Act at the Seoul Western District Court, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on June 22, 2013. However, the above crime, such as fraud, was committed before the judgment on the violation of the foregoing Military Service Act became final and conclusive, and it is not a case where the judgment can be rendered simultaneously with the instant crime committed after March 2015, and thus, the lower court sentenced a sentence in consideration of the crime and equity in the instant crime, such as fraud, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, on November 17, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes against AB, AC, AD, AE, AE, AF, and AG at the Seoul Western District Court. On the other hand, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of fraud against the victim H, AI, forgery of private documents, and fraud of the above investigation documents, but each of the above crimes was committed prior to the date on which the judgment of violation of the Military Service Act became final and conclusive, and does not constitute a single concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Since the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 9, 2017, which was after the judgment of the court below, and the crime in this case is in the concurrent relationship between each of the above crimes for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment of this case shall be determined in consideration of the equity in the case where the judgment is to be rendered at

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.