A. Whether a crime committed before the expiration of the remaining term of punishment after parole becomes a repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act

(b) The expiry date of sentence execution, where a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act is provisionally released;

A. If a crime was committed again after parole while the execution of the sentence was paroled before the expiration date of the sentence, it does not constitute a crime after the completion of the sentence under Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

B. In the case of an in-service sentence against a juvenile, the expiration date of the long-term sentence will be the date on which the sentence is executed, except in extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the prison has terminated the sentence in short term.

Articles 35 and 76 of the Criminal Act, Articles 2 and 54 of the Juvenile Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Do1531 delivered on July 16, 1974

Defendant

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of Seoul District Court (75 high Gohap317)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of four years and a short term of three years and six months.

The 110-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is as follows: first, the defendant did not have committed the crime of this case by deceiving the victim on the wall of the defendant; the court below found the defendant guilty as the indictment; second, on April 11, 1974, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of one year and six months, a long term of one year and eight months, and was released after the execution of the above punishment on November 8, 1975 under the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; second, if the defendant was released after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of one year and six months, a crime cannot be committed on September 9, 1975; since the defendant was released on June 20, 1975 and released on September 9, 1975, it cannot be aggravated as a repeated crime even if a repeated crime was committed; second, the judgment of the court below is erroneous or unjust.

Therefore, first of all, the first ground for appeal is examined, and the various evidences duly adopted by the court below (in particular, the defendant led to the confession of the crime in the court below) are examined in light of the records, and the facts charged of the defendant can be recognized. Therefore, the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

The second ground for appeal is examined. If the statement of the court below and the court of the first instance are combined with the statement in the court of the court below and the court of the first instance, the statement in the record of the criminal records prepared by the chief of the public security headquarters, and the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor on April 7, 1974, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a short term of one year and six months, a long term of one year and one year and eight months at the Incheon Juvenile Reformatory, and was released on June 20, 1975, and the remaining term of imprisonment was terminated on November 8, 1975 (in the case of an irregular punishment for a minor, the date of termination of a long term sentence in the prison of the court of the second instance and the court of the first instance shall be deemed to be the end of the execution of the sentence, and it shall be interpreted to be favorable for the defendant, which is a repeated crime, to interpret it after the completion of the execution of the sentence, even though there is no special circumstance such as the termination of the execution of the sentence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the member is again decided.

(Criminal Facts)

On April 11, 1974, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a short term of one year and six months, and one year and eight months, due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court Support, and was released on June 20, 1975 at the Incheon Juvenile Reformatory, and the expiration date of the term of the punishment expires. The defendant's joint defendant was conspired with the joint defendant of the court below in order to take the rest of other person's money and valuables before melting it on November 8, 1975. At around 22:00 on September 22:12, 1975, the court below reported the network, etc. to the victim non-indicted 2 (year 59) who was traveling along the Dong, and the defendant was released to the victim non-indicted 2 (age 1) who was forced to resist at the same time, and the defendant was forced to resist the victim's 10th of the 10th of the 2nd of the 2nd police station.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement that corresponds to the facts set forth in the original judgment by the defendant and the co-defendant in the original judgment

1. Statement made to the effect that it conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment among the examination records of the accused and the joint accused of the original judgment prepared by a public prosecutor and judicial police officer;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment among the written statements made by the judicial police officer regarding Nonindicted 1 and 2 prepared by him/her;

1. Records consistent with the judgment from among the records of verification prepared by the judicial police officer handling affairs;

1. Each description that conforms to the part and degree of the injury as indicated in the judgment among the medical certificates and opinions on Nonindicted 1 and 2 prepared by the doctor Nonindicted 3 and 4

1. As can be recognized if one of the seized red bricks (No. 1) is combined, there is sufficient proof.

The defendant, as a mentally handicapped person at the time of committing the crime, has committed this case under the conditions of mental and physical disorder, and thus, should not be mitigated or punished, and the judgment of the court below which imposed the punishment is erroneous or legal violation, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument of the defendant. Therefore, the above argument of the defendant

Application of Statutes

The judgment below of the defendant is that the defendant is a juvenile under Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act and Article 54 (1) 3 of the Juvenile Act, and the defendant is a juvenile under Article 54 (1) of the Juvenile Act, so long as the two crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and since the two crimes are concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, the punishment for robbery and bodily injury under the latter part of the judgment of the court below shall be heavy, and the defendant is a juvenile, and there are reasons to take into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is a juvenile, and he is still dead, the punishment shall be included in the above punishment under Article 54 (1) of the Juvenile Act within the scope of the punishment for discretionary mitigation under Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Sang-won (Presiding Judge)