logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1983. 10. 25. 선고 83감도404 판결
[보호감호][공1983.12.15.(718),1780]
Main Issues

Cumulativeization of concurrent crimes and term of punishment under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act;

Summary of Judgment

When a person is sentenced to punishment under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a crime other than the same or similar crime is concurrent, but when the punishment prescribed for the same or similar crime is most severe, it shall be based on the sentence sentenced in calculating the term of punishment under Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act

Applicant for Custody

Applicant for Custody

upper and high-ranking persons

Applicant for Custody

Defense Counsel

Attorney Lee In-bok

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 83No1069,83No220 Decided July 8, 1983

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel are examined.

As a result of the opposite interpretation of Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act, in cases where a punishment is imposed under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, such as a case of litigation, and crimes other than the same or similar crimes are concurrent, but when the punishment is the most severe for the same or similar crimes, the sentence shall be imposed in calculating the term of punishment provided for in Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act. According to the records, the 4-year imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the previous district court of March 11, 197, is punished as concurrent crimes of habitual larceny, stolen, and stolen, and the punishment prescribed by habitual special larceny is more severe than the crime of acquisition, custody, etc. of stolen property, and it is clear by the corresponding law of the Criminal Act, and thus, the above 4-year punishment should be added in calculating the term of punishment as provided for in Article 5 (1) 1 of the Social Protection Act. On the premise of the same opinion, the court below's judgment is justifiable, and there is no violation of law in other opinion of law.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)

arrow