A. Comparison between the continuous crimes under the former Criminal Act and the former Criminal Act

(b) Application of laws favorable to offenders;

A. Since a series of continuous crimes under the former Criminal Act, and a series of active crimes are punished by the most statutory penalty or the most severe criminal punishment among such several acts, such several acts are not a general and independent crime, and thus, even in a case where there is a change in a part of the law, the punishment of the former Criminal Act should not be compared with that of the former Criminal Act for each of such acts, first of all, the most severe punishment among such acts should be compared with the former Criminal Act and then the former Criminal Act should be compared with the latter.

B. In the case of concurrent crimes under the new Criminal Code, the concurrent crimes, except for the ordinary concurrent crimes, shall be limited to the concurrent crimes, and it shall not be limited to the concurrent crimes, and it shall be limited to the concurrent crimes, without recognizing the whole of the concurrent crimes.

Articles 55, the latter part of Article 54(1) of the former Criminal Act, Articles 40, 227, and 135 of the Criminal Act, Articles 3 and 6 of the Addenda of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

Busan District Court and Daegu High Court of the second instance

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

According to the reasoning of the original judgment of the first instance court in the two kinds of defendant Kim Jong-sung's appeal, the other defendant 1 ordered his defense counsel to promptly process the payment procedure at the end of the year by taking advantage of his occupational position, and ordered his subordinate employees to exhibit, Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3, etc., who are his subordinate employees, to use the official document in the corresponding column of each official document, such as a document delivery report, which is necessary for the disbursement of the national funds, and the minimum bid price, and the quantity of the goods exhibited is falsely entered in the successful bid in the corresponding column of each official document, and thus, the defendant affixed his seal to the document (No. 14) with the seal of his subordinate official to prepare a false official document for the purpose of uttering and affixed his seal to his official document, and it is not possible for the public official to use the official document in the name of his subordinate official to obtain approval of his official document as well as the document delivery prepared by his official document in the name of his senior official (No. 14, 2000).

(1) According to Article 156(1) of the former Criminal Act (Article 65(1) of the former Criminal Act with respect to the preparation of a false public document at the 3rd anniversary of the fact that the court below's ruling of the first instance court's holding that it was erroneous for the defendant to take advantage of Article 4 of the former Criminal Act and Article 56(1)5 of the former Criminal Act with respect to the 3rd anniversary of the fact that the defendant's new provision of the former Criminal Act was not applied to the 5th anniversary of the fact that the court below's new provision of the Act was merely an error of law regarding the 5th anniversary of the fact that the defendant's new provision of the Act was applied to the 3rd new provision of the former Criminal Act with regard to the 3rd new provision of the Criminal Act with regard to the 5th new provision of the former Criminal Act with regard to the 3rd new provision of the same Act with regard to the 3rd new provision of the Criminal Act with regard to the 3rd new provision of the Criminal Act.

Defendant 1 merely did not conduct a thorough examination on Defendant 2’s delivery and merely imported unconditionally, i.e., constitutes a crime. Defendant 1’s judgment does not conflict with that of public drinking other than Defendant 1’s judgment. However, Defendant 1 merely stated that Defendant 1’s remaining pets that Defendant 2’s reduction of and exemption from Defendant 2’s crime were included in the crime, and even if Defendant 1 appears to be a private person living in prison for 29 years before and after the day, Defendant 1 can be seen as a person of an extremely clean personality, and Defendant 1’s written statement to the effect that Defendant 1 avoided or was able to avoid the vehicle at the time of Defendant 1’s signing and sealing on the document in the judgment of the court below, and Defendant 1’s written statement to the effect that Defendant 1 was either a person’s basic intention or a person who was able to receive electricity and that was imported by Defendant 2 at the request of Defendant 2, and that Defendant 2’s new evidence of Nonindicted 2’s witness.

the statement is made in accordance with article 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

First of all, regarding the second ground of appeal, the series of concurrent crimes under the former Criminal Code is one of the most statutory punishment or the most severe punishment of the two crimes. Therefore, the number of concurrent crimes under the former Criminal Code shall be limited to a part of the overall crime and shall not be independent, and in the new Criminal Code, it shall prevent the concurrent crimes except for the concurrent crimes under the former Criminal Code, and it shall be increased by deeming each act as an independent crime, and the application of concurrent crimes under the former Criminal Code shall be more favorable to the defendant and more favorable to the latter, and it is appropriate that the former Criminal Code Article 3 of the new Criminal Procedure Code shall not apply to the subsequent concurrent crimes under the former Criminal Code after comparing the former Criminal Code to the new Criminal Code Article 4 of the former Criminal Code. Therefore, it is not appropriate to compare the previous Criminal Code Article 4 of the former Criminal Code to the new Criminal Code Article 4 of the former Criminal Code, and it is not necessary to compare the previous Criminal Code Article 6 of the former Criminal Code with the new Criminal Code applicable to the subsequent punishment of the latter.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)