Whether res judicata effect of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is an aggravated crime against habitual offenders of special robbery on which a final judgment has been rendered, affects the crime of robbery

In Article 341 of the Criminal Act, there are special provisions on habitual crimes concerning robbery, special robbery, robbery and marine robbery. However, since there are no special provisions on habitual crimes concerning robbery, robbery, robbery, robbery, robbery, etc., even if the crime of robbery was committed before the final judgment of the crime of robbery, it shall be interpreted that the crime of robbery and robbery (Robbery, robbery, robbery) are in a substantive concurrent relationship rather than in a comprehensive one-day relationship. Therefore, the res judicata effect of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is an aggravated crime of special robbery, does not extend to the crime of robbery.

Article 341 of the Criminal Act, Article 5(3) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Yong-compliance

Seoul High Court Decision 82No350 decided May 27, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant appealed 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Southern Branch of the Seoul District Court on July 13, 1981, and recognized that the above judgment becomes final and conclusive at the time of the appeal by the Seoul High Court on November 5 of the same year, and it is evident that the crime of injury by robbery of this case was committed on February 10, 1980 prior to the final and conclusive judgment. However, the crime of injury by robbery of this case was committed on the grounds that the crime of injury by robbery of special robbery of this case cannot be deemed to have been committed on the crime of injury by robbery of this case and the res judicata effect of this case cannot be deemed to have been committed on the same crime. The judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant maintained the concurrent relation between the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes of this case (the special larceny of crime is deemed to be special larceny according to the judgment of the court of first instance, but it appears to error).

According to Article 341 of the Criminal Act, each crime of robbery (Article 333 of the Criminal Act), special robbery (Article 334 of the Criminal Act), robbery (Article 336 of the Criminal Act), marine robbery (Article 340(1) of the Criminal Act) shall be subject to aggravated punishment. However, with respect to robbery (Article 337), robbery (Article 338 of the Criminal Act), robbery (Article 338 of the Criminal Act), robbery (Article 339 of the Criminal Act), robbery (Article 339 of the Criminal Act), and robbery (Article 341 of the Criminal Act), there are no special provisions concerning aggravated robbery. Thus, even if the crime of robbery was committed before the final judgment of the crime of robbery as in this case, even though the crime of robbery was committed before the final judgment of the crime of robbery, the crime of robbery and the above robbery (Robbery, robbery) shall be interpreted to be in a substantive concurrent relationship rather than in relation to a comprehensive crime, and thus, the court below's judgment below is justified in its holding that there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to reverse res judicata effect on the crime of an aggravated punishment of an aggravated punishment of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)