A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Defendant did not submit a written reason for appeal within the statutory period.

B. The judgment of the court below which rejected the Defendant’s pronouncement of sentence on the grounds of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the suspended sentence, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the suspended sentence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the suspended sentence of KRW 3 million) is too unhued and unfair.

2. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act, as to the suspended sentence of a punishment, provides that when a sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than one year, suspension of qualification, or a fine is imposed, the sentence may be suspended when the former circumstances have been obvious in light of the matters of Article 5

Provided, That this shall not apply to a person who has been sentenced to suspension of qualifications or more severe punishment.

"........"

The term "previous convictions who have been sentenced to the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment" in the proviso refers to the criminal history of which the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment has been sentenced, and it is reasonable to interpret that the punishment has lost its effect or not.

Meanwhile, even if a person, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence under Article 65 of the Criminal Act, loses the effect of the sentence after the lapse of the grace period without the invalidation or cancellation of the sentence, this does not have the legal effect of the sentence and does not have itself nor have the fact that the sentence was pronounced. Thus, the person shall be deemed to fall under “a person having a criminal record who was sentenced to suspension of qualification or heavier punishment,” who is a reason for disqualification for the sentence under the proviso of Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8269, Oct. 9, 2008). According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for six months by a district court of government on November 11, 2014 to interfere with business affairs, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive around that time.