beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which judged that the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (an injury to a group, deadly weapon, etc.) in each of the instant cases was committed by one act and constitutes a single act and constitutes a substantive concurrent relationship, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles
B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) On the grounds of appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the name of the crime with respect to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) at the trial of the party, as “special injury”. The applicable legal provision was changed to “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
2) Ex officio, “a crime for which judgment to punish with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive” falls under concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a crime for which judgment has not been rendered and a crime for which judgment has not been rendered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced to punishment in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered concurrently becomes final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence may not be imposed, or mitigated or exempted from the sentence considering equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014; 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2013).