Cases where there are errors of punishment as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and criminal facts before and after a final judgment.

At night, the larceny of larceny committed on August 6, 1965 belongs to a crime prior to the final judgment of 8 months by a defendant on November 1, 1965, which was committed by the Seoul District Court on the charge of forging Private Document, and it is clear that the night intrusion larceny committed on May 2, 196 is a crime after the final judgment of 196, and it is obvious that each crime committed by the former and latter constitutes a crime after the final judgment of 1965. However, it is erroneous to apply the law.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 391 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 66No642 delivered on October 6, 1966

The original judgment and the first instance judgment shall be reversed respectively.

A person who intrudes upon a house on April 1966 and commits a crime by intrusion upon another house of the same on May 2, 1966, in respect of night residence intrusion larceny, which committed by the defendant on August 6, 1965, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The forty days of detention days before the judgment in the first instance shall be included in the original sentence.

피고인의 상고이유는, 피고인은 1965.11.월달에 사문서위조죄로 징역 8월의 형을 받고, 복역하다가 1966.4.24 출감하여 집에 돌아왔으나, 가정환경이 곤난하여, 사촌형댁에 동정을 구하러 갔다가 사촌형과 형수가 집에 있지아니함으로 사촌형이 입던 양복하의와 책상위에 둔 라디오(금성) 1대를 가져온 일은 있으나 1965.8.6에 사촌형집에서 자전거와 라디오, 시계등을 갖어온일은 없으니, 관대한 처분을 하여 달라고 함에 있고 이는 결국 원판결에는 중대한 사실의 오인과 양형부당의 잘못이 있다는 취지로 볼 것인바, 이와같은 주장은 형사소송법 383조 각호 의 어느 사유에도 해당하지 아니하여 채용할 수 없다.

Next, according to the facts found by the first instance judgment which maintained the original judgment, the defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging private documents at the Seoul District Court on November 1, 1965; he at that time intrudes on the Non-Indicted Party House at around 04:0, August 6, 1965; he was set up in his house at one bicycle line at the same time; he was first owned by the same person; first class, first class, first class, first class, first class, first class, and first class, first class, and second class, which were owned by his house at its house at its house at its own expense at its own expense; second class, the defendant was sentenced to 16 years of imprisonment with prison labor at its own expense at its own expense at its own expense at its own expense; third class, first class, first class, first class, and third class, and third class, second class, third class, and third class, second class, third class, and third class, third class, third class, and third class, fourth class, and fourth class, fourth class, and fourth class.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, Articles 39 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act are the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, inasmuch as the defendant committed the crime in August 6, 1965, the night intrusion larceny at night is a crime committed before the final judgment at the time of first trial, and the crime in which the judgment became final and conclusive and the crime in which the defendant committed the crime in this night intrusion larceny at night is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment for the above night intrusion larceny without the judgment under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act shall be imposed. The defendant's above falls under Article 330 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant's imprisonment with prison labor is included in the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor within the prescribed period, and the defendant's punishment shall be included in the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of 30 months and the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor under the Criminal Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman