The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

"A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall constitute concurrent crimes prescribed in 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 has become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive

Meanwhile, in light of the language, legislative purport, etc. of the former part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if 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 the punishment of a defendant may not be imposed, or mitigated or exempted from such punishment in consideration of equity when a judgment is rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do948, Oct. 27, 201; 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court may not determine the punishment of a final and conclusive judgment which became final and conclusive on May 13, 201 after the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than six months at the Central District Court of Seoul, which became final and conclusive on September 13, 2011.