사서명위조등
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
1. The decision of the court below (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant, ex officio, filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and the court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above cases.
However, each crime of the first and second judgment is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and at the same time, a sentence should be imposed. As such, the judgment of the court below in the first and second judgment cannot be maintained.
In addition, on March 13, 2015, the lower court determined that the service of the Defendant on March 13, 2015, who was unable to serve a copy, etc. of the indictment on the Defendant due to the uncertainty of the whereabouts of the Defendant, by means of serving public notice. On April 15, 2015, the lower court conducted an examination of evidence under the Defendant’s absence of attendance pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of
According to the above facts, there is no reason to assume that the defendant was unable to attend the trial and there is a reason to request a retrial.
Recognized.
Accordingly, this court's revocation of the decision to serve public notice and again served a copy of the indictment, etc., and subsequently proceeds with all the procedure of trial including the examination of evidence, so the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.
Meanwhile, according to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and nine months at the Changwon District Court on December 21, 2017 for special larceny, etc., and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 2, 2018.
Since special larceny, etc., which became final and conclusive, and each of the crimes of the lower court No. 1, are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment for the crime of this case shall be determined by taking into account equity with the concurrent judgment under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.
The judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained in this respect.
3. The judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above.