[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반][공1986.7.1.(779),845]
The meaning of "the crime of the preceding Article" or "the crime of the preceding Article" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act
The term “the crime of the preceding Article” or “the crime of the preceding Article” referred to in Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to only the crimes of each Article of the Criminal Act prescribed in Article 2(1), and it does not refer to habitual offenders of each Article of the Criminal Act prescribed in Article 2(1).
Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act
Supreme Court Decision 83Do3105 Delivered on March 13, 1984
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Song-hoon
Gwangju District Court Decision 86No68 delivered on March 7, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.
Each ground for appeal by the defendant and public defender shall be examined together.
1. Regarding the argument that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to public offering and concurrent crimes:
Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below is insufficient, the court below's decision that the so-called "the defendant's judgment constitutes Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act" is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to conspiracy, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to conspiracys 1 and 2 in the fact that the defendant's judgment against the non-indicted 1 and 2 is subject to concurrent crimes, in collusion with the non-indicted 1 and 2 in collusion with the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 1 for the purpose of using them.
2. Regarding whether there is a misapprehension of the legal principles on habitual offenders:
The term "crimes of the preceding Article" or "crimes of the preceding Article" referred to in Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to only the crimes specified in the preceding Article of the Criminal Act under Article 2 (1), and does not refer to habitual offenders of the crimes specified in the preceding Article of the Criminal Act under Article 2 (1). The judgment of the court below is also a case where Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act is habitually committed against the defendant, and the judgment of the court below is also a case where Article 257 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act is habitually committed against the defendant, and it is not a case where such act constitutes an element specified in Article 3 (2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, but is a non-Habitual crime but constitutes an element specified in Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, and therefore it is evident that such act constitutes an element specified in Article 3 (2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and therefore there is no misapprehension of legal principles as to habitual habitual crimes.
3. The Defendant’s ground of appeal is not a legitimate ground of appeal in the instant case where the Defendant’s sentencing is excessive, or where the Defendant’s imprisonment with labor for a short term of one year and six months and a long term of two years is sentenced.
4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)