The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

Defendant .

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the punishment (the fine of KRW 8 million for each of the defendants A, B, and the fine of KRW 5 million for each of the defendants C) declared by the court below to the defendants is too unfasible.

2. An ex officio judgment (part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below) held that each of the crimes in this case as indicated in the judgment against Defendant A and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective injury, threat of deadly weapons, etc.) which became final and conclusive on November 22, 2013 are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, the court held that the defendant was guilty of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) which became final and conclusive on June 13, 2012, and that Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act is not applicable to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective injury, threat of deadly weapons, etc.) was committed before the judgment becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the court below held that the punishment shall be separately determined by applying the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, in light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act, where 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 relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). The crime of each of the instant judgment against Defendant A and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Intimidation of collective groups, deadly weapons, etc.) against which judgment has become final and conclusive

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which applied the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act to Defendant A is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to concurrent crimes as provided in the above provision, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A

3. Judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion (the part against Defendant B and C in the judgment of the lower court) was committed against Defendant B.