게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.
Defendant
B Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months, and Defendant C.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment with prison labor for six months, the imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and the additional collection for the defendant C) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the language of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act for ex officio determination of Defendant B, and the legislative intent of Article 39(1), if a crime for which no judgment has yet to be made could not be judged concurrently with the crime for which a judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence may not be imposed, or that the sentence may not be mitigated or exempted, by
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012) Review of the records reveals the following facts.
Defendant
B On June 13, 2012, the judgment became final and conclusive on October 10, 2012, on the following grounds: (a) two years of suspended sentence for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch; (b) two years of suspended sentence for a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act; and (c) two years of suspended sentence for a violation of the Daegu District Court Act; and (d) on February 21, 2013, the judgment became final and conclusive on March 1, 2013; and (b) a crime of criminal conviction was committed on March 21, 2012 prior to the final and conclusive date of the judgment of the previous conviction (as of February 21, 2012; February 23, 2012).
However, the instant crime was committed from October 29, 2012 to November 1, 201 of the same year. As such, ① the crime was committed after the day when the judgment of the previous offense became final and conclusive, ② the crime of the previous offense was committed when the crime was committed before the day when the judgment of the previous offense became final and conclusive. As such, the instant crime and the crime of the previous offense, which became final and conclusive, constitute a case where the first judgment cannot be declared simultaneously at the same time.
Nevertheless, the court below sentenced punishment for the crime of this case in consideration of equity in the case where the crime of this case was committed simultaneously with the crime of previous offense pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles,
B. Determination on Defendant C’s assertion