(a) Where a sentence of exemption from punishment may be pronounced;

(b) A case where a summary judgment of exemption from punishment has been pronounced in a case of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, but such summary judgment has been reversed due to an extraordinary appeal by the Prosecutor General;

(a) in a criminal trial, a sentence of immunity must be imposed on the grounds that the applicable law provides for exemption from punishment or that there are grounds for exemption from punishment, such as self-denunciation and self-denunciation recognized by the criminal law;

B. In the case of violation of Article 114 subparag. 6 and Article 63(3)2 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 1 subparag. 24 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the judgment became final and conclusive by sentencing a summary judgment of exemption from punishment to the defendant, but the relation of both crimes is a regular concurrent crime and should be punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act pursuant to Article 40 of the Criminal Act, and there are no grounds for sentencing exemption from punishment for the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and there is no other reason for exemption from punishment under the Criminal Act, and the part of exemption from punishment among the original summary judgment is reversed by accepting an extraordinary appeal by the Prosecutor General on the grounds that there is no reason for exemption from punishment under the Criminal Act.

(b)Article 52(b) of the Criminal Code; Article 40 of the Criminal Code; Article 114(6) of the Road Traffic Act; Article 63(3) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act; Article 1(24 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act;

Defendant 1 and seven others

Prosecutor General;

Seoul District Court Decision 94Da1839 (Defendant 1), 1840 (Defendant 2), 1841 (Defendant 3), 1842 (Defendant 4), 1843 (Defendant 5), 1844 (Defendant 6), 1845 (Defendant 7), 1846 (Defendant 8)

Each part of the summary trial court's exemption from punishment against the defendants is reversed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the records, on May 15, 1994, the court below rendered a summary judgment of each of the accused accused cases violating the Road Traffic Act, and it is evident that the judgment became final and conclusive.

However, in a criminal trial, each of the above accused cases is a violation of Article 114 subparagraph 6 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 63 (3) subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 1 subparagraph 24 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act and Article 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and there are no grounds for sentencing sentence exemption, and there is no other reason for sentencing exemption under the Criminal Act.

However, the relationship between the two crimes in the records is the so-called commercial concurrent crimes that constitute several crimes, and the punishment provided for in the violation of the Road Traffic Act, which is more severe than the statutory punishment pursuant to Article 40 of the Criminal Act, is to be imposed. Therefore, the court cannot render a sentence of exemption from punishment against the Defendants under law. The same holds that even if the relationship between the two crimes is regarded as concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, even if punishment is imposed pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act, it is impossible to render a sentence of exemption from punishment against the Defendants.

Therefore, an extraordinary appeal which causes the error is to reverse the exemption from punishment among the original adjudication because it is reasonable. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

October 14, 1994

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)