logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
집행유예
(영문) 대법원 1979. 12. 26. 선고 79도2135 판결
[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반][공1980.2.15.(626),12503]
Main Issues

The case that was destroyed due to the cancellation of the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 for the national security and the protection of public order.

Summary of Judgment

The court below and the court of first instance apply Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to a fine in addition to imprisonment with prison labor, as the so-called accepting a bribe of 500,000 won or more among the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant, by applying Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and applying Article 2 (1) 9 of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order. However, subparagraph 9 of the said Emergency Decree applies to a case where the defendant was lawfully released and abolished on December 8, 1979.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant

Defense Counsel

Attorney Kim J-jin (Korean)

original decision

Seoul High Court Decision 78No831 delivered on July 19, 1979

Text

The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

70 days during the period of detention prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the first instance shall be included in the above sentence.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for five years from the date of the final judgment.

The amount of KRW 8,750,000 shall be collected from the defendant as a penalty.

Reasons

First, each of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is examined.

According to the evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the facts of the judgment are legally recognized, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts as violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in this case, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing

The following judgments are made ex officio:

The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance that accepted a bribe of 500,000 won or more among the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant in each of their respective reasons constitutes Article 2 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, while applying Article 2 (9) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the protection of public order, in addition to imprisonment with prison labor, the defendant shall be punished concurrently. However, Article 9 of the Emergency Decree of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that since it was lawfully cancelled and abolished pursuant to Article 10:0 of the Act on December 8, 1979, it shall not be applied since the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance that applied it shall not be all dismissed, and

Since the relationship between the facts constituting an offense and the evidence acknowledged by a member of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be quoted in accordance with Articles 399 and 369 of the same Act (Provided, That among the evidence admitted by the court of first instance, the interrogation of a suspect against the non-indicted person prepared by the prosecutor shall be excluded), and the so-called "the first instance court's attached order 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 15, and 16" in Article 2 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be included in the same order 3, 5, 68, 10, 13, and 14, the so-called "the crimes" in Article 129 (1) of the same Act shall be included in the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for the latest period of punishment of the defendant under Article 37 (1) of the same Act, and since the reasons for confiscation of the above punishment of Article 37 of the same Act shall be the same Act.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow