Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or more and the Act on the Suspension of Execution provided for in Article 64 of the Criminal Act refers to all the final and conclusive judgments (see Supreme Court Order 66Mo25, Jul. 27, 196). Thus, Articles 64 through 62 (1) of the Criminal Act provide that if the grounds for the suspension of execution are discovered after the judgment of suspension of execution becomes final and conclusive, it shall be limited to cases where a previous conviction falling under the grounds for the suspension of execution is discovered after the judgment of suspension of execution becomes final and conclusive, and it shall not be revoked if the former judgment becomes final and conclusive before the final and conclusive judgment becomes final and conclusive. The purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court at the same time becomes final and conclusive after the final and conclusive judgment of the final and conclusive court's final and conclusive judgment of suspension of execution was not to be rendered for 8 months on March 25, 190 and 198 months after the final and conclusive judgment of the Supreme Court's final and conclusive judgment of final and conclusive.

In light of the above facts, since the electronic judgment, which was sentenced to a sentence on December 24, 1980, became final and conclusive as the waiver of final appeal, it is reasonable to view that the judgment of probation became final and conclusive after the lapse of this day, and the judgment of probation became final and conclusive on February 24, 1981, and thus, the judgment of probation was found before the judgment of probation became final and conclusive, and thus, the judgment of probation was dismissed by the prosecutor's appeal on the premise that the above case satisfies the requirements for cancellation of probation, and as long as the discovery of the previous conviction is before the judgment of probation becomes final and conclusive, it is reasonable to conclude that the judgment of probation does not meet the requirements for cancellation of probation even if the Supreme Court of Korea sentenced the illegal probation which cannot be sentenced under the proviso of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that the cancellation of probation

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)