성폭력범죄의처벌및피해자보호등에관한법률위반(특수강도강간등)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The lower court exempted the Defendant from punishment on the ground that the instant crime was in the concurrent relationship between the first head as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the fact that the method and nature of the crime of this case committed by the defendant who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to robbery, injury, etc. and committed the crime of this case for a period of two months after parole, the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed before two months have elapsed since the parole while the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment due to robbery, injury, etc., and was sentenced to imprisonment due to robbery, etc., and the crime of violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (Special Rape) committed nine days before the day of the crime (hereinafter “related crime”), and the applicable method are identical to the crime and the nature of the crime is bad, and even if the damage was not recovered until the trial, it may be deemed that the Defendant should be punished strictly.
However, the crime of this case is related to the relevant crime and the concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the concurrent crime”), and the Criminal Act, through the revision of July 29, 2005, separated the judgment for the concurrent crime, which was a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the concurrent crime”), from the judgment for the reason that the criminal was not responsible to the defendant, and the total amount of the punishment sentenced to each of the concurrent crimes, was sentenced to one sentence at the same time, and was sentenced to one sentence, so that the punishment can be “alleviated” or “exempt” in the case of ex post facto concurrent crimes in order to correct any unreasonable sentencing in which the punishment was sentenced.
In light of the purport of the above amendment, Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Specialized Crimes Act”) is deemed to apply to the instant case to concurrent crimes, where it is assumed that the instant crime and related crimes are committed simultaneously.