Whether there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment in a case where all criminal facts indicate a criminal record which is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, but do not specify it in the application

In addition to the substantive law applicable to specific criminal facts, it is recognized that the purpose of applying the provision in the judgment is recognized, and in particular, it cannot be said that the law was not indicated in the application column of the law. Thus, even though the criminal facts are stated in the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it cannot be said that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment even if the law does

Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 323 and 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Do2869 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1204) Supreme Court Decision 92Do2196 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3344) Supreme Court Decision 93Do1002 delivered on December 23, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 735)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 96No1027 delivered on November 27, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. 35 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The court below's finding the defendant guilty of the crime of this case cannot be said to have erred in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by a public defender

In addition to the substantive law applicable to specific criminal facts, the purport of applying the provision is recognized, and in particular, it cannot be said that the law was not indicated in the column of applying the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do1002, Dec. 23, 1994; 90Do2869, Mar. 12, 1991; 90Do2869, Mar. 12, 199). The court below omitted the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act in applying the law to criminal facts of this case. However, the court below, citing the judgment of the first instance on Jan. 31, 196, stated that "the defendant was sentenced by the Incheon District Court for a suspended sentence of ten months due to the fabrication of private documents, which became final and conclusive on Oct. 31, 1996; and therefore, it did not affect the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

3. The appeal shall be dismissed, and thirty-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)