The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (e.g., e., e., e., e., e.g.,

2. As to the suspension of sentence, Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “In the event that a sentence of imprisonment, imprisonment without prison labor for not more than one year, suspension of qualification, or a fine is imposed and the circumstances concerned are remarkable, the suspension of sentence may be suspended, taking into consideration the matters prescribed in Article 51: Provided, That this shall not apply to a person who has been sentenced to suspension of qualifications

Here, the term "previous convictions who have been sentenced to the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment" refers to the criminal records themselves which have been sentenced to the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment, and it is reasonable to interpret that the effect of the punishment is lost or not.

Meanwhile, even if a person who was sentenced to a suspended sentence loses the effect of the sentence after the lapse of the grace period without the invalidation or cancellation of the sentence in accordance with Article 65 of the Criminal Act, this does not lose the legal effect of the sentence and do not lose the fact itself that the sentence had been sentenced. Thus, it should be viewed as a "person having a criminal record who was sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment", which is the grounds for disqualification of the suspended sentence under the proviso of Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act.

(1) The defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two-year imprisonment with prison labor for robbery at the Seoul Central District Court on August 22, 2000 and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time, according to the evidence duly adopted by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8269, Oct. 9, 2008). The defendant constitutes "a person who has been sentenced to a suspended sentence or a heavier punishment than a suspended sentence" under the proviso to Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the defendant cannot make a judgment of the suspended sentence against the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rendered a suspended sentence against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to suspended sentence.