The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The gist of the allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal concerning the crime of aiding and abetting an offender is that the act of aiding and abetting another person to flee is not punishable in light of the fact that the act of aiding and abetting another person to flee is not punishable, or that there is no possibility of expectation.

However, the act of causing another person to commit a crime of aiding and abetting a criminal by making another person make a false confession on his/her behalf constitutes a crime of aiding and abetting a criminal through abuse of his/her right of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3707, Dec. 7, 2006). Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

2. The offense for which a judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and the offense for which a judgment has become final and conclusive concerning concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the offense for which a judgment has been committed before the said judgment has become final and conclusive shall constitute concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, with respect to a crime for which a judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes under

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment by the Daejeon High Court on August 8, 2012 due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). Since the judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 2012, which was prior to the judgment of the lower court, the lower court should have sentenced the defendant to imprisonment by taking into account the equity between the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime for which the judgment became final

The judgment of the court below which did not take such measures is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.