logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1989. 4. 11. 선고 88도1155 판결
[강간치상][공1989.6.1.(849),780]
Main Issues

Aggravation of suspended sentence judgment (negative)

Summary of Judgment

"A sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment" in the proviso to Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act is not referred to only as "a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment", and therefore, it shall not be sentenced again to a suspended sentence, considering whether the criminal facts of a case to be newly determined during the suspended sentence are before and after the suspended sentence.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 83Do2198 Delivered on June 26, 1984

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Defense Counsel

Attorney Jin-young

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 88No247 delivered on May 3, 1985

Text

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Reasons

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

In the proviso of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code, "the sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment" is not referred to only as a sentence, and therefore, the suspended sentence cannot be again sentenced in the case because of the fact-finding in the suspended sentence, which was committed before, or subsequently committed an act that was committed before or after, a new trial was conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2198 delivered on June 26, 198).

According to the statement of the prosecutor's criminal judgment against the defendant who prosecuted after the filing of the appeal, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1 year and six months for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Seoul District Court's Southern Branch on July 13, 1987, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on that day.

Therefore, if a judgment of the court of first instance rendered on May 3, 198 by the defendant with the same judgment as the above certified copy of the judgment, it is reversed that the court of original judgment was sentenced to a maximum of three years of imprisonment and a short of two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the proviso of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act and the suspension of execution for a period of two years and six months shall be sentenced to a violation of the proviso of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the above provision of the law shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for a new

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won

arrow
심급 사건
- 서울고등법원 1985.5.3.선고 88노247

관련문헌

- 박정근 형법의 학계와 판례 고시계 35권 1호 (89.12) / 국가고시학회 1989

- 윤용규 한국의 형유예제도 : 집행유예와 선고유예 . 비교형사법연구 6권 2호 (2004.12) / 한국비교형사법학회 2004

- 이태운 실형전과가 있는 자로서 그 형의 집행종료나 집행면제후 5년이 경과되지 아니한 자의 여죄에 대한 집행유예 선고 가부 대법원판례해설 14호 (91.11) / 법원도서관 1991

- 조병현 집행유예의 결격사유와 취소사유 재판자료 49집 (상) / 법원행정처 1990

- 손동권 형유예제도와 죄형법정주의 고시계 48권 11호 (2003.11) / 국가고시학회 2003

- 김영진 집행유예취소 요건상 문제점과 제도의 위헌성 : 재차의 집행유예가 선고확정된 후 집행유예가 취소된 사례를 중심으로 사법연수생논문집 21기 / 사법연수원 1992

- 오병주 양형의 합리화방안에 관한 검토 법조 49권 9호 (2000.09) / 법조협회 2000

- 김교창 집행유예의 기간중에 다시 집행유예를 선고할 수 있는 경우 인권과 정의 159호 / 대한변호사협회 1989

- 최상욱 집행유예기간 중의 재범에 대한 집행유예 선고가능성 강원법학 22권 / 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2006

- 박달현 형법상 보충성원칙에 관한 연구 고려대학교 1996

- 박상기 현행 집행유예제도와 형법개정안 연세대 연세행정논총 18집 / 연세대학교 행정대학원 1992

참조판례

- 대법원 1984.6.26. 선고 83도2198 판결

참조조문

- 형법 제62조 제1항 (위헌조문)

본문참조판례

대법원 1984.6.26. 선고 83도2198 판결

본문참조조문

- 형법 제62조 제1항

원심판결

- 서울고등법원 1985.5.3. 선고 88노247 판결