In a case where a statute was amended to punish a person who fails to appear on the specified date without justifiable grounds, whether it constitutes "when a sentence is repealed due to the repeal or repeal of the statute after the crime is committed" under Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (affirmative)

Article 524-8(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act, which provides that a person who fails to appear on the specified date shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five million won, was punished by detention for not more than 20 days by a court’s ruling under Article 68(1)1 of the same Act, which was enforced from July 1, 2002, and the amendment of this Act was made from reflective consideration that it is unfair to impose a punishment immediately on the debtor who fails to comply with the court’s request for appearance in the procedure for requesting the specification of property having the character of indirect compulsory performance against civil obligations, and thus, it constitutes a case where a sentence is repealed due to the amendment or repeal of the statutes after a crime under Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act was committed.

Article 524-8(1)1 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (see current Article 68(1)1 of the Civil Execution Act), Article 68(1)1 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 2002Do2086 delivered on August 27, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2370)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Kim Young-hwan (Korean National Treasury)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002No808 delivered on July 23, 2002

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

1. It is proper that the court below recognized that the defendant committed each of the fraud of this case in collusion with the formation and use with the intent to commit the crime by deceit, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and violation of the precedents, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the grounds of appeal

2. Furthermore, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty by applying Article 524-8(1)1 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002; hereinafter the following) to the facts charged in violation of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, Article 524-8(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act, which provides that a person who fails to appear on the specified date shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five million won, was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 days, and Article 68(1)1 of the former Civil Procedure Act, which was enforced from July 1, 2002, was amended by a court’s ruling to punish him/her by detention for not more than 20 days. This Act’s amendment was made from reflective consideration that it was unfair to impose a punishment immediately on the debtor who fails to comply with the request, etc. of the court in the procedure for filing a request for specification of property having the character as an indirect compulsory means for non-performance of civil obligations, and constitutes a case where a sentence is repealed due to

Therefore, the judgment of acquittal should be rendered on the facts constituting a crime in violation of the Civil Procedure Act which the court below found guilty, and since the court below rendered a single sentence by deeming the facts constituting a crime in this part and each of the crimes in this case as concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)