The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) was that the Defendant appealed only for the reason that the sentencing was unfair on the first trial date, and the Defendant withdrawn his claim for mental and physical weakness.

Considering the various circumstances of this case, the punishment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. "A crime for which judgment to face imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" constitutes a prescribed concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code provides that when determining punishment for a crime which has not been adjudicated among such concurrent crimes, equity should be taken into account at the same time when the crime and the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive.

The lower court, on April 13, 2018, sentenced the Defendant to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of assault at the Seoul Central District Court on April 13, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive

As above, since the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of this case committed before the judgment became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, in determining punishment for each of the crimes of this case, one year was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant in consideration of equity in cases where the crime of this case and the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.

Examining the records of the court below, there is no submission of materials concerning the crime of assault that became final and conclusive in the above judgment, and there is no evidence of the court below’s deliberation through the judgment or the statement of the person concerned about what the contents of the crime of assault were stated.

Therefore, the lower court, in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, determined punishment for each of the crimes of this case by taking account of equity in cases where the crimes of this case and the assault crimes for which the said judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrently judged.

Nor may be viewed (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209 Decided December 23, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, and Supreme Court Decision 27 January 27, 2011).