The case to be acquitted on the ground that it is a single comprehensive crime

In a case where each of the crimes of special larceny, which are the facts charged of the instant case committed by the Defendant, prior to the final and conclusive judgment, was deemed to have been committed against the Defendant’s theft habit, this constitutes a single comprehensive offense of habitual special larceny. As such, the facts charged of the instant case conflicts with the res judicata of the said final and conclusive judgment, and thus, a judgment of acquittal should be rendered.

Article 332 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Do156 Delivered on March 24, 1970

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 78No760 delivered on July 12, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant was sentenced ex officio to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, residential intrusion larceny, etc. to the Daejeon District Court on August 18, 1977, and the judgment became final and conclusive August 19 of the same year. The special larceny date of the above final judgment is 1976.34.5.30 of the same year. Each day of the special larceny charges, which are the facts charged in this case, was committed before the above final and conclusive judgment, was committed as stated in the indictment. Since each day of the special larceny charges in this case, which are the facts charged in this case, was committed before the above final and conclusive judgment, was committed, and the facts charged in this case, which are the facts charged in this case, were repeated continuously through several ways and methods, or through a short period, it is not acceptable to accept the above facts charged in this case's comprehensive larceny relation with the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above comprehensive larceny charges in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench under Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)