Acquittal judgment of acquittal on charges of a crime prosecuted after final judgment and a crime committed before final judgment is concerned with a single comprehensive crime;

If it is recognized that the crime of special larceny and larceny committed before the final and conclusive judgment and the crime of simple larceny committed in the same way as the crime of larceny committed by the defendant was committed, these two crimes are in the relation of a single comprehensive crime of habitual special larceny, which is a single crime under substantive law, and the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment on the above special larceny and larceny is not limited to the charges of simple larceny, and thus, a judgment of acquittal of the charges of simple larceny shall be rendered.

Articles 37 and 332 of the Criminal Act; Article 326 Subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Do3564 Decided February 14, 1978 Supreme Court Decision 79Do2173 Decided October 30, 1979

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No3831 delivered on November 15, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for two years in October of 1983, and the facts charged of special larceny in this case, which became final and conclusive prior to the above final and conclusive judgment, in light of the date and method of the crime, etc., and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to habitual crimes. In addition, if the facts are true, the facts charged of the above special larceny and the facts charged of this case, which already received the final and conclusive judgment, are in the relation of habitual larceny under the substantive law, and therefore, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment on this special larceny and the facts charged of this case is excessive to the facts charged of this case which are judged as being prosecuted for simple larceny, and therefore, the judgment of acquittal should be rendered (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 7Do3564 delivered on February 14, 1978), and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prosecutor's negligence.

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

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)