The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be established concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship between concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence may not be imposed or mitigated or exempted in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment shall be concurrently rendered 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 records, the Defendant, upon being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 6 months at the Seoul Central District Court on May 27, 2015, and the judgment for whom judgment has become final and conclusive on August 20, 2015 (see, 20.

The court below held that each of the crimes of this case and the crimes of this case Nos. 2 and 3 are concurrent crimes of different groups after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The decision was made and the sentence was sentenced at the same time in consideration of equity in the case of judgement in accordance with Article 39, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

However, as seen earlier, fraud of the judgment No. 3 is committed before the judgment No. 1 becomes final and conclusive.