[1] Whether the real estate, which was already executed or delivered, is included in the infringement of the effect of compulsory execution for real estate under Article 140-2 of the Criminal Code (affirmative)

[2] In a case where another case was combined with a summary order for which the defendant applied for formal trial, whether it is against the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration to the disadvantage that the defendant sentenced more severe punishment than that of the summary order while serving as concurrent offenders (negative)

[1] Examining the legislative intent, structure, and structure of the crime of infringement on the effect of compulsory execution of real estate under Article 140-2 of the Criminal Act, it shall be interpreted that the real estate, which is the object of the crime of infringement on the effect of compulsory execution of real estate, is included in the real estate which has been

[2] In a case where the defendant requested a formal trial against a summary order, it does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration as stipulated in Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, where the defendant conducted a consolidated trial on another case and sentenced a penalty heavier than that imposed by the summary order to concurrent crimes.

[1] Article 140-2 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 80Do981 delivered on May 27, 1980 (Gong1980, 1289) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3448 delivered on September 18, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2305)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2000No7807 delivered on May 29, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the infringement on the effect of the compulsory execution to the real estate

Article 140-2 (Infringement on Effect of Compulsory Execution to Immovables) of the Criminal Act provides that any person who intrudes on any immovables stipulated by compulsory execution or delivered by other means, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years, or by a fine not exceeding seven million won. In light of the legislative intent, structure and structure thereof, it shall be interpreted that any real estate which is the object of the offense of infringement on the effect of compulsory execution to immovables, is included in the real estate which is already executed or delivered by compulsory execution.

In light of the records, the court below's action against the defendant's act that intruded on the ground parking lot of the judgment that was executed in accordance with the above interpretation is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the infringement of the effect of compulsory execution against real estate. The ground of appeal as to this point is without merit.

2. On the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration

In a case where a defendant requests formal trial against a summary order, it does not violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration as provided in Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which imposed more severe punishment than the sentence imposed by the summary order after conducting a consolidated trial against another case as concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Do981, May 27, 1980; 2001Do3448, Sept. 18, 201).

According to the records, the defendant filed a request for formal trial with a summary order of KRW 2 million as to the violation of the effect of compulsory execution of real estate as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the first instance court tried to consolidate the crimes of invalidation of indication in the line of duty as stated in the judgment which was indicted separately in the above case, and sentenced the defendant not guilty in the whole. The court below reversed the judgment of the first instance and convicted all the above crimes, and sentenced a fine of KRW 3 million as concurrent crimes. In light of the above legal principles, the above measures of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. The allegation in the grounds of appeal as to this point is not acceptable.

3. As to the invalidity of indication in the line of duty

The defendant did not submit a legitimate statement of grounds for appeal concerning the criminal facts of invalidity of indication in the line of duty as to the defendant, and the petition of appeal does not contain any information in the grounds for appeal.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)