Defendant

Prosecutor

The claim of this case is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced to a stay of sentence of a fine of KRW 700,00 in the case of violation of the Labor Standards Act (No. 2006No39, Mar. 23, 2006) and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 31, 2006. However, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of two years in the case of fraud, etc. in this court No. 2005No3962, Jun. 16, 2005, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the same day, and the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a sentence of KRW 2005No3962, which became final and conclusive on the above case before the sentence of suspended sentence was rendered can be recognized as having been withdrawn during the trial process.

2. Determination

The prosecutor asserts that the defendant should be sentenced to a suspended sentence under Article 61(1) of the Criminal Act, inasmuch as the criminal record of imprisonment with prison labor was discovered, and thus the defendant should be sentenced to a suspended sentence. Thus, according to Article 61(1) of the Criminal Act, if the person who received the suspended sentence is "guilty", the suspended sentence shall be imposed. Here, the term "when a criminal record of suspension of qualifications or more is discovered" refers to the case where the above reasons are discovered only after the judgment of suspension of qualifications becomes final and conclusive, and where a cause for disqualification is discovered before the judgment of suspension of qualifications becomes final and conclusive, it shall not be invalidated, and in this case, the term "the defendant discovered before the judgment becomes final and conclusive" refers not to the case where the prosecutor clearly becomes aware of the cause for disqualification, but to the case

As seen above, although the prosecutor knew or could know the grounds for disqualification of the suspended sentence to the defendant before the judgment of the suspended sentence was rendered, the judgment of the suspended sentence became final and conclusive because he did not know or know the objective situation that he knew or could know the grounds for disqualification of the suspended sentence to the defendant before the judgment of the suspended sentence was rendered. As such, even if the prosecutor delayed this and requested the invalidation of the judgment, it cannot be said that the prosecutor's prior conviction resulting in the suspension of qualification or more severe punishment

3. Conclusion

The claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-jin (Presiding Judge)