In the event that the defendant's appeal is combined with regard to the two concurrent crimes, only one sentencing sentence shall be imposed for the concurrent crimes, and the separate sentencing sentence shall be imposed for the other crimes prosecuted separately, the action of the appellate court shall be rendered.

In the event that the appeal of the defendant is all combined with regard to concurrent crimes by applying the former and latter parts of Article 37 of the Criminal Act to only one punishment by applying the former and latter parts of Article 37 of the same Act, and on the other crimes prosecuted to the same court against the defendant separately, the appellate court shall determine and sentence a new punishment ex officio, and shall decide and sentence a new punishment, and the appeal of the defendant shall not be dismissed unless the appeal of the defendant is groundless.

Articles 37 and 39 of the Criminal Act; Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Daejeon District Court Decision 85No501,1205 decided Dec. 18, 1986

The judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that there was an error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence in the judgment below. However, according to the records, Defendant 1 was sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,00 in violation of the Abandonment Business Act in the Daejeon District Court Red Branch of Daejeon District Court on January 29, 1984, and was prosecuted for the above 84Da547 on May 3, 1984, and the offense of insult 84Da553 on March 26, 1984, and the offense of assault and punishment of Defendant 2 on March 10, 1983, which were prosecuted for the above 84Da945 on May 3, 1984, the court below should have ruled that the above punishment of Defendant 1 was concurrent with the above concurrent crime of Article 198 of the Criminal Act and applied the same legal principles as the punishment of Defendant 2 on April 25, 1984, and thus, the court below should have ruled that the remaining punishment of Defendant 1 was concurrent crime of Article 371 of the Criminal Act.

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

Examining the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court below and the court of first instance maintained, in light of the records, the court below's action that recognized the same criminal facts as stated in its judgment and applied the same as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act to the same defendant shall be acceptable, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, such

The issue is ultimately unacceptable as it permits evidence preparation and fact-finding, which is a fact-finding authority of the lower court, and is therefore unacceptable.

3. Therefore, the part concerning Defendant 1 among the judgment below is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)