beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The sentence (one million won penalty) imposed by the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. "A crime for which judgment of imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which judgment of concurrent crimes has not been rendered and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act has become final and conclusive at the same time, a sentence shall not be imposed concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and where a crime for which no judgment has become final and conclusive cannot be mitigated or remitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). According to the records of the instant case and significant facts in this court, the Defendant shall not be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for which judgment has become final and conclusive on October 20, 16, 2014.
However, the lower court’s determination of the punishment of this case by taking account of the crime of final and conclusive judgment No. 2 and equity pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to the instant crime committed after the date of final and conclusive judgment No. 1 was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.
3. The judgment of the court below is correct.