The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

. Information on the Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, inasmuch as the Defendant did not assault the victim to rape within a cargo vehicle, such as the facts charged, as in the judgment of the lower court regarding the injury resulting from rape under paragraph (1) of the same Article.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the lower court, on the premise that each of the instant crimes, the date and time of the crime, on May 22, 201, were repeated crimes, applied Article 35 of the Criminal Act, and added a repeated offense.

However, according to the records, the defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) in the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court on July 7, 2010, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 11, 2011, and the defendant was released from the Jeonju prison on September 26, 2010, which was pending in the appellate trial of the above case, by revocation of detention.

Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act provides, “A person who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment and commits a crime equivalent to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment within three years after the execution thereof is completed shall be punished as a repeated crime.”

However, the execution of sentence is premised on the confirmation of judgment, and the execution of pre-trial detention is not immediately executed, and the defendant was released from prison on September 26, 2010.

Even if this cannot be viewed as the termination of the execution of punishment, and the defendant completed the execution of punishment only after being sentenced to the above decision by the Supreme Court on August 11, 2011.

I would like to say.

Considering these circumstances, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes on May 22, 201, which was before the completion of the above punishment, and thus, does not constitute a repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

Furthermore, a separate criminal offense cannot be found.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on repeated crimes.