Crimes committed before and after a final and conclusive judgment do not constitute concurrent crimes as referred to in Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The crimes committed before and after the final judgment overlap with the crimes committed after the judgment, but it is not in the concurrent crimes relationship under this Article, and thus, it is justifiable to punish each of the two separate orders.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 70No346 delivered on October 6, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence for the facts set forth in 2.3 when one trial is held.

The Defendant’s grounds of appeal are as follows:

Although crimes committed before and after a final judgment overlap with those committed before and after a final judgment, this does not constitute concurrent crimes as referred to in Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the court below divided the criminal facts before and after the final judgment into two separates, and punished two separate orders, is just and the original judgment does not contain any error of law that affects the conclusion of the judgment, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by applying law to the original judgment.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the sixty days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the facts No. 2.3 at the time of one trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng