[2] In a case where a previous conviction which becomes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code is pardoned, punishment shall be imposed as concurrent crimes under the latter part of the same Article

[2] In relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, the term "crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive" means the fact that a final and conclusive judgment was rendered on any of several independent crimes, and the validity of a sentence is lost due to general amnesty. Therefore, even if the effect of a sentence is pardoned by a violation of the Road Traffic Act, which became final and conclusive in the first instance judgment by Presidential Decree No. 14818 on December 2, 1995, under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Amnesty Act, even if the validity of a sentence is lost due to amnesty, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, which became final and conclusive in the first instance judgment by Presidential Decree No. 14818 on December 2,

A. As to the guilty part

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act provides that "If a person who has issued or prepared a check fails to pay it on the date for presentation due to shortage of deposits, suspension of transaction, cancellation or termination of the check contract after issuing the check, it shall be subject to the preceding paragraph." Article 2 (1) of the same Act provides that "The previous Illegal Check Control Act prior to amendment by Act No. 1747 of February 26, 1966, "the term "the term "one check" means any of the following subparagraphs," and Article 4 (1) of the same Act provides that "the person who has issued or prepared the illegal check shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years, or by a fine not more than ten times, or by a violation of the Road Traffic Act, it shall be deemed that there was no violation of Article 2 (1) and (2) of the current Regulation of the Illegal Check Control Act, but it shall be deemed that there was no violation of the Road Traffic Act No. 2 of the previous Regulation of the Check Act. 3.

However, the crime of violation of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act was established immediately at the time when the issuer issues the above check, and it is not established when the check holder presents the check for payment on the date of presentment, and it is established not at the time when the check holder issues the above check, and the above opinion needs not be changed even in light of the reasons cited by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do2640, Mar. 11, 1986; 78Do2623, Sept. 25, 1979).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding the time when the crime under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established.

On the other hand, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, which became final and conclusive, was pardoned by general amnesty by Presidential Decree No. 14818 of Dec. 2, 1995. Accordingly, if the above crime does not constitute a crime of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the above illegality of the judgment below cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment, and this is examined.

In the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the term "crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive" means the fact that there was a final and conclusive judgment on any crime among several independent crimes, and it shall not be asked whether the effect of sentence has been lost due to ordinary amnesty. Thus, even if the effect of sentence has ceased to exist due to amnesty of a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act which became final and conclusive in the first instance judgment by the Presidential Decree No. 14818 of Dec. 2, 1995 by the Presidential Decree No. 14818 of Dec. 2, 1995, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act which became final and conclusive in the first instance judgment by the Presidential Decree No. 14818 of Dec. 1, 1995, as long as the existence of a crime of which judgment has become final and conclusive is not extinguished by

Therefore, in this case, if the defendant is placed on the charge of violating the Illegal Check Control Act, two punishment should be imposed by applying the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.

Ultimately, the illegality of the judgment of the court below which misleads the time of establishment of the crime under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act does not constitute an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is without merit.

B. As to the dismissal of prosecution

The court below's rejection of prosecution against the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act does not include the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief, and since the ground of appeal was not submitted within the legitimate period, this part of the appeal is without merit.

2. Defendant’s appeal shall be considered as having been lodged;

The appeal of this case does not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of this case, and the grounds of appeal were not submitted within the legitimate period, so the defendant's appeal is without merit

3. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the conviction of the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the appeal by the prosecutor as to the dismissal of public prosecution and the appeal by the defendant shall be dismissed, respectively, and it is so decided as

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)