Relationship between res judicata and universal offense of a final judgment

If the construction room of this case is the same as that of the thief who was sentenced to imprisonment due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the construction room of this case which was executed prior to the above final judgment, the above two crimes constitute the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, comprehensively under substantive law, and thus, the res judicata of the above final judgment is not sufficient to be judged

Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court of First Instance (86 High Court Decision 371)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

The gist of the prosecutor's appeal is as follows: first, in light of the defendant's criminal records of larceny, the court below recognized the defendant's crime of this case as a mere larceny even though it is recognized as a mere larceny, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality of larceny, or in the misunderstanding of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment; second, the court below's sentencing against the defendant is too unreasonable.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below after examining the evidence and the defendant's statements in this court and the statements in reply to the fact-finding of the head of Daegu District Court on March 25, 1987, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months in the Daegu District Court on March 25, 1987 and its judgment became final and conclusive, and the facts charged in this case, which are viewed as being followed before the above final and conclusive judgment, can be recognized as being committed against the theft habits of the defendant. Thus, the facts charged in this case and the facts charged in this case are deemed as being committed against the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes by combining the above final and conclusive judgment under the substantive law, and thus, the res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment is related to the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, but it also constitutes a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Therefore, the judgment

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and the party members are as follows.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Daegu District Court on August 18, 1981; two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the same court on January 28, 1982; ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for night intrusion larceny at the same court on November 3, 1983; on July 25, 1984, after being sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Busan District Court on May 25, 1986; and was entrusted to the Daegu District Court at the Busan District Court at the Daegu District Court at the Daegu District Court at the Daegu District Court at the Daegu District Court at the same time on May 14, 1986; on June 14, 1986; on June 14, 1982, the defendant had a comprehensive relation with the above violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the above 2000 square meters.

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

Judges Cho Hong-won (Presiding Judge)