[형집행유예선고취소][집14(2)형,040]
A case which cannot be seen as a ground for cancellation of suspension of execution under Article 64 of the Criminal Code.
64.12.4 If the judgment of the court of first instance becomes final and conclusive at the same time due to the withdrawal of each appeal above 10.7 of the above year, the former judgment does not constitute a ground for the short sentence of Article 62 of the Criminal Act, in relation to the latter judgment, and Article 62 of the Criminal Act is not applicable to the latter judgment when the former judgment becomes final and conclusive at the same time.
Articles 64 and 62 of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Prosecutor
Jeonju District Court Decision 66Da172 delivered on March 18, 1966
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds for reappeal by a prosecutor are examined.
According to the original decision, the lower court: (a) the Defendant was injured by assault and injury of June 3, 1965 at the first instance court (the Jeonju District Court);
(A) On December 4, 1964, a sentence of a suspended sentence (65Da466) was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and 6 months and 6.2 years and a sentence of a bodily injury resulting from occupational negligence (the crime committed on February 18, 1965) was again sentenced to a suspended sentence (the crime committed on February 18, 1965) for 8 months and 65Da1714, which was appealed.
10.7 An appeal against each case in the appellate court (the latter part of the appellate court, in the case of the latter part of the appellate court, 65No229).
Each of the above judgments of the first instance on the ground that a written withdrawal was submitted en bloc (electronicly accepted by the latter of No. 867)
section 62 (1) of the Criminal Code, which has resulted in the confirmation of the court at the same time, shall be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or more
"Pronouncement" in the provisions of Article 64 or the "Pronouncement of Execution of Sentence" shall be sentenced to a final and conclusive judgment.
I refer to this, and this two final and conclusive judgments are in the relationship with the other final and conclusive judgments at the same time.
When the reasons for the proviso of Article 62 are discovered after the suspension of execution of sentence prescribed in Article 64 of the Criminal Act was rendered.
Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the above interpretation of Article 62 (1) and Article 64 of the Criminal Act, while it is apparent that the reason for appeal was rejected to the effect that the former judgment falls under the grounds for the latter part of Article 62 of the Criminal Act in relation to the latter judgment, and it cannot be said that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the above determination of the above decision or the above interpretation of Article 62 (1) and Article 64 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the theory of lawsuit cannot be accepted as a misunderstanding of the reasoning for appeal that has been dismissed lawfully by the decision.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)