beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio determination.
"A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall constitute concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among concurrent crimes has become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive
According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of road traffic law at the Suwon Friwon on May 17, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 14, 2017.
The crime of this case was committed before the judgment became final and conclusive on December 2, 2016, by having been sentenced to one year by the Defendant for forgery of private documents, etc. at the Suwon Franchis Board on June 2, 2016. However, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) at the Suwon Franchis Board on July 6, 2011, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 14, 201. On December 2, 2016, the crime of forging private documents was committed before the judgment became final and conclusive on July 14, 201, and thus, the crime of forging private documents was committed simultaneously before the judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on equity or exemption from driving under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do979, Jul. 19, 209).
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is unfair since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above.