Whether the provision of mitigation of punishment not applied is illegal which affected the judgment.

The statutory punishment is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 7 years, and the sentence of 4 years imprisonment without prison labor without prison labor for the mitigation procedure under the criminal law has influenced the judgment as a mistake in the application of the law.

Article 55 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yang Sung-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 83No970 delivered on July 7, 1983

Cheongju District Court Decision 82 Gohap175 delivered on March 30, 1983

All the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the first instance are reversed.

As to the crimes set forth in Article 1 of the judgment of the defendant, the crimes set forth in Articles 2 and 2 of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 4 years.

The number of days under detention prior to the imposition of judgment in the first instance shall be 110 days including the punishment for the crime under subparagraph 1 of the above judgment.

One knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the public defender are examined.

In full view of the trial evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below, the facts constituting the crime of the larceny of this case against the defendant are recognized, and there is no error of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the theory of the lawsuit, and in the case of this case where the court below sentenced the defendant to four years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, the judgment of the court below and the argument

However, we examine ex officio the crime of robbery No. 1 as stated in the reasoning of the judgment. The crime of robbery No. 2 and No. 3 as stated in the judgment is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act for the same reasons as stated above. Since the crime of Articles 2 and 3 as stated in the judgment is a concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 39 (1) of the same Act separately, the above crime of Articles 1 as to the crime of Articles 39 (1) and 39 (1) of the same Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, with prison labor for the above crime of robbery No. 2 and No. 3 as stated in the judgment, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years within the scope of the term of punishment, with prison labor for the crime of robbery bodily injury as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below's judgment of first instance shall be reversed as it is sufficient that the defendant was a member of the court of first instance as stated in the judgment of the court.

The judgment of the court of first instance also is reversed and it is so decided as follows.

The summary of facts and evidence admitted by a party member as to this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Articles 399 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Act) The first instance judgment of the defendant is as follows: Article 329 of the Criminal Act; Article 5-4 and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 330 and 329 of the Criminal Act; Article 337 of the Criminal Act provides that the third instance judgment of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment; Articles 337 of the Criminal Act shall be punished by imprisonment; the first instance judgment of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor; the first instance judgment shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Articles 2 and 3; and the first instance judgment shall be concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the same Act as those of special larceny which have already become final and conclusive; Article 39 (1) of the same Act shall be included in the first instance judgment of the defendant; Article 1 of the same Act shall be included in the first instance judgment of the same Act; Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act shall be included in the first instance judgment of the defendant; Article 51 of the same Act shall be included in the first instance judgment of imprisonment with prison term.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)