A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Seized evidence 1 and 2 shall be confiscated, respectively.

Punishment of the crime

On April 25, 200, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Central District Court, and on March 25, 2003, sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the same crime in the same court. On November 3, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the same crime in the same court and completed the execution of the sentence on July 22, 2008.

Even if the decision on commencing a new trial becomes final and conclusive, the effect of the previous decision subject to a new trial is not affected, before the new decision becomes final and conclusive.

According to the investigation report (Attachment of Final Judgment) submitted on July 15, 2015, the defendant committed habitual larceny on March 29, 2014, which was after the decision subject to a retrial (this Court Decision 2009DaDa2198) became final and conclusive, and was sentenced to three-year imprisonment for habitual larceny from Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2014No3296) on April 16, 2015, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 24, 2015, but the res judicata effect of the final judgment does not extend to the crime of this case by blocking it by the final and conclusive decision subject to a retrial. Therefore, it is determined that the judgment of acquittal cannot be pronounced on the crime of this case.

In addition, if a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive could not be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the crime of this case cannot be judged concurrently from the beginning with the crime of habitual larceny, which became final and conclusive on April 24, 2015, and therefore, the crime of this case cannot be judged simultaneously with the crime of habitual larceny, which became final and conclusive on April 24, 2015. Therefore, the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established between each of the above crimes, and therefore, Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, which takes into account equity with the case where a sentence for a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive, is to be