The case where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ordinary concurrent crimes

A. The crime of robbery and rape and bodily injury from rape, which are criminal facts of the Defendants, are crimes of ordinary concurrences which fall under several crimes, and the court below's decision was justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of ordinary concurrences.

Article 40 of the Criminal Act, Article 301 of the Criminal Act, Article 339 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Jeonju District Court (80 Gohap195)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment for a short term of five years, for a long term of six years, and for a short term of five years and six months, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be 170 days, including each penalty.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsel is that the Defendants were guilty of all the facts affecting the judgment although they did not have committed robbery, rape and bodily rape, which are criminal facts of the crime of the original judgment, and the second point is that the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable that the amount of the punishment is determined by the punishment for a short-term of five years and six years for each of the defendants. Therefore, considering the evidence duly adopted by the court below, the first point of the grounds for appeal is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of the original judgment, and therefore, it is sufficient to discuss the above appeal since it is reasonable to acknowledge the criminal facts of the original judgment, in full view of the evidence duly adopted by the court below.

Then, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of ex officio revocation of the judgment on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds of ex officio revocation of the judgment on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing and the injury on rape and rape committed by the Defendants, which constitute several crimes, even though one act constitutes a commercial concurrent crimes.

Since the criminal facts acknowledged by a member as to this case and the evidence relations are the same as the timely statement of the judgment of the court below, it is intended to accept them as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Article 339, Article 334(2) of the Criminal Act provides that the part of the so-called robbery and rape in the judgment of the Defendants shall be limited to Articles 339, 334(2) of the Criminal Act; the part of the injury resulting from robbery under Articles 301, 297 and 334(2) of the Criminal Act is limited to Articles 337 and 334(2) of the Criminal Act; the part of the crime of robbery and bodily injury resulting from rape, which is a criminal fact, constitutes several crimes; since one act constitutes several crimes, the punishment of robbery and bodily injury resulting from robbery, which is a serious crime is to be imposed; and the above punishment of several crimes shall be imposed upon the victims under Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, which are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; the victims of the crime shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum period of up to 5 years under Article 15 of the Criminal Act; the victims of the crime shall be punished under Article 15 of the Criminal Act;

Judges Lee Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)