In case of habitual offenders who are convicted of a part of multiple criminal facts which are related to a single comprehensive crime, the requirements for a judgment of acquittal for the remaining crimes which were committed before a judgment of facts in the final judgment is rendered.

Articles 37, 347, and 351 of the Criminal Act; Articles 247(2) and 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do3206 Decided September 16, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1684) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3532 Decided September 24, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3963 Decided October 28, 2005

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Yong-han

Busan District Court Decision 2006No2049 Decided October 26, 2006

The final appeal is dismissed. The number of days of detention days before the sentence of the first instance judgment, which is included in the original sentence in the calculation of the period of detention after the final appeal, and the remaining days of detention after the sentence of the first instance judgment, which is included in the original sentence by the original judgment, shall be included in the original sentence for each crime under subparagraph 1 of the judgment.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if the facts constituting an offense committed before the pronouncement of the judgment of facts in the final judgment and the facts recorded in the final judgment constitute a blanket offense, in case where the res judicata of the final judgment is to be applied to the offense committed prior to such a final judgment, the relevant defendant should be prosecuted and punished as a habitual offender, and if he/she is punished as a basic element of a crime other than a habitual offender, even though all of the facts constituting a comprehensive offense as a habitual offender, even though it is judged that res judicata of the final judgment does not affect the said facts committed prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of facts (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do3206, Sept. 16, 2004).

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that did not render a judgment of acquittal on the facts constituting the crime of this case is correct, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence for each crime under Article 1 of the Judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)