In the case of concurrent crimes between crimes A and B, which are concurrent crimes, the appellate court has pronounced guilty of the crimes A and not guilty of the crimes referred to in “B”, and only the prosecutor files an appeal against the crimes referred to in “B”, the scope of the appellate court’s judgment where the appellate court reversed and remanded only the final appeal against the crimes referred to in “B”

With respect to concurrent crimes against the defendant in violation of the Military Service Act and the violation of the River Act, the appellate court found the defendant guilty on the former, and found the defendant not guilty on the latter, and if the prosecutor appealeds only the latter, the appellate court should judge only the latter.

Articles 397 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 74No672 delivered on March 20, 1974

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of three months against the River Act.

Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

In comparison with the original judgment, the appellate court's judgment prior to the remanding of the original court rendered a guilty verdict as to the crime of violation of the Military Service Act and the crime of violation of the River Act against the defendant, and sentenced the defendant not guilty. The defendant renounced the appeal against the above judgment, and the prosecutor appealed only to the crime against the latter, and the original judgment was reversed and remanded to Busan District Court, which is the original judgment. As such, the crime of violation of the Military Service Act against the defendant was committed in violation of the River Act. Since the judgment of the original court prior to the remanding of the original case is only a violation of the River Act, since only the case of violation of the River Act, which was reversed and remanded after the remand of the original judgment, is the only case of violation of the River Act, which was reversed and remanded after the remand of the original judgment, the lower court may examine only the case of violation of the River Act, which was reversed and remanded after the remand of the judgment, and even if the judgment became final and conclusive, the lower court should have tried a separate sentence, and therefore, cannot reverse the legal principles concerning the scope of the judgment after remand.

Since it is recognized that the principal source is sufficient to render a judgment based on the records of the case, evidence examined by the original court and the first instance court, the principal source is to be directly decided in accordance with Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and criminal facts and evidence against the River Act, which the principal source recognizes, are the same as the judgment of the first instance court cited by the lower court,

In light of the law, the so-called violation of the River Act by the defendant in his principal case constitutes Article 81 subparagraph 2 of the River Act and Article 25 (1) subparagraph 6 of the same Act, and thus, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months within the scope of the prescribed term of punishment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)