logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1986. 3. 25.자 86모2 결정
[집행유예취소청구기각결정에대한재항고][공1986.6.15.(778),796]
Main Issues

(a) Requirements for revocation of suspension of execution;

(b) Whether the first instance court’s sentence of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment is against the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration to the disadvantage of the sentence of imprisonment by shortening the term of imprisonment;

Summary of Judgment

(a) If it is intended to revoke the suspension of execution under Article 64 of the Criminal Act, it shall be limited to the case where the criminal records falling under the grounds for revocation are discovered after the judgment of the suspension of execution becomes final, and if it is discovered before the judgment becomes final; and

B. As to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment in the first instance trial, the second instance court’s sentence to shorten the term of imprisonment and the sentence to the sentence is contrary to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 64 of the Criminal Act, Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 70Do33 Decided March 24, 1970

Escopics

Defendant

Re-appellant

Prosecutor

United States of America

Busan District Court Order 17 January 17, 1986, 86Ro1

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In order to revoke the suspended sentence under Article 64 of the Criminal Act, it shall be limited to the case where the criminal records falling under the grounds for the revocation are discovered after the judgment of the suspended sentence becomes final and conclusive, and shall not be revoked if the judgment becomes final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Order 81Mo44, Jan. 19, 1982). Accordingly, the court below's decision is just in holding that the defendant violated the above provision of Article 64 of the Criminal Act and the judgment of the court below to the effect that the suspended sentence was revoked on Oct. 23, 1984 on the ground that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year for the crime of injury upon existence at the Busan District Court, but the appeal was dismissed, and that there was no violation of the above provision of Article 64 of the Criminal Act and the above provision of the suspended sentence cannot be revoked for the reason that the above suspended sentence was not revoked after the sentence became final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da1744, Oct. 23, 1984).

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)

arrow
본문참조조문