The case where each law was erroneous for concurrent crimes and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The crime of using forged corrosion delivery contract and cash storage certificate in a lump sum is related to the commercial concurrent crimes, and there is no explanation that the punishment specified for the most severe crime is imposed, and the crime of this case is committed before the judgment previously sentenced becomes final and conclusive, but the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is not applied, which is a violation of the law which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Articles 40 and 37 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293Ma757 delivered on October 12, 1961 (Supreme Court Decision 5793 Decided 5793, Supreme Court Decision 9 Forms 150 and 40(4)1252 of the Criminal Act)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (76 High Court Decision 1009)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

15 days from the detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: (a) the defendant did not commit the crime of this case; (b) the court below found the defendant guilty; (c) there was an error of law that affected the judgment; and (d) the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. Therefore, in light of the records, first point of the grounds for appeal, the first point of the appeal is examined; and (d) in light of various evidence duly adopted by the court below after examining evidence, it is possible to acknowledge the criminal facts of the defendant, and thus, the grounds for appeal as to the mistake of facts cannot be accepted. Then, the second point of the grounds for appeal is examined ex officio before examining the second point of the grounds for appeal, and each event of a forged supply contract and cash storage certificate of the defendant among the criminal facts is in a conceptual concurrence relationship with each other; (d) the defendant did not explain that punishment was imposed for a heavier crime; and (e) on July 23, 1976, the defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence for a period of one year and six years, and thus, the judgment of the judgment is not reversed, notwithstanding the latter part of Article 37.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Articles 364(2) and 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a member is again decided

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding case of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Of the judgment of the defendant, Article 225 of the Criminal Act provides that Article 229 of the Criminal Act provides that Article 225 of the Criminal Act provides that Article 225 provides that Article 2 and Article 3 of the Criminal Act provides that the second and third frauds of the judgment shall be committed, and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that one of the forged supply contract and the forged cash custody certificate crimes constitutes several crimes. Thus, from among the punishments provided for in fraud, Article 40 of the Criminal Act provides that punishment shall be imposed on the crime of uttering of the forged supply contract and the forged cash custody contract, and the above crimes choose a prescribed penalty among the punishments provided for in fraud, and the above crimes are concurrent crimes with Article 37 (1) of the Criminal Act. Article 39 (1) provides that Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the above crimes shall be sentenced again, and Article 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act provides that the punishment shall be included in the term of imprisonment with prison labor for the above crimes.

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

Judges Kim Sang-won (Presiding Judge)