Principle of Prohibition against Double Jeopardy after the suspension of indictment;

The effect of the prosecution does not affect the conclusion of the prosecution even if the prosecutor conducted a disposition of suspension of indictment once again for larceny. The court sentenced the conviction on the facts of the prosecution, and it cannot be said that it goes against the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy.

Article 12(1) of the Constitution, Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Attorney Hah Hyeong-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 83No1973,83No399 delivered on September 22, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

45 days, out of the days pending trial after appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are examined.

On the other hand, a prosecutor who once has taken a disposition of suspension of indictment for larceny, once again conducted the disposition of suspension of indictment, does not affect the validity of the indictment, and the court rendered a judgment of conviction on the facts of the indictment, which cannot be said to go against the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy. Therefore, the appeal by the prosecutor against double Jeopardy cannot be adopted.

In full view of all the circumstances shown in the records, such as the facts of previous conviction, the means, method and character of the crime in this case, the age, occupation, family relation, degree of property of the defendant, time interval from the completion of the execution of the last sentence to the crime in this case, the conduct during this period, and circumstances after this case, the court below's judgment to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the risk of recidivism, such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)