logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.03.11 2015노6809
절도등
Text

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed respectively.

The first instance court held that the defendant is the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined that each of the crimes in the second instance judgment of the lower court constituted a special larceny and ex post facto concurrent crime, which became final and conclusive on September 12, 2015, and thus, the punishment is determined in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (6 months of imprisonment with prison labor of KRW 1, 2) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the premised legal doctrine’s language, legislative intent, etc., if a crime not yet adjudicated cannot be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment became final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a punishment cannot be imposed or the punishment may not be mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity and the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

In the event several crimes which have not yet been adjudicated were committed before and after the final judgment became final and conclusive, the crime committed before and after the final judgment cannot be judged concurrently with the crime for which the final judgment became final and conclusive, and as there is no final and conclusive judgment, Article 38 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to apply as the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among the several crimes, and as such, Article 38 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to apply (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). (b) According to the records of the instant case, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for one year for a crime committed on or before the final and conclusive judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Feb. 13, 2014).

arrow