Whether the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in a case where both the habitual fraud crime committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment which was prosecuted is related to the comprehensive crime of habitual fraud is against the charges of habitual fraud instituted after the final and conclusive judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In a case where it is recognized that all facts charged of fraud committed before the final and conclusive judgment and the final and conclusive judgment were committed in the damp walls of the defendant, the two parties will deal with the relation of comprehensive one crime of habitual fraud, regardless of the case of habitual offender, regardless of the case of habitual offender. Therefore, the facts charged shall be acquitted in violation of res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment.

Article 351 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Do3564 Decided February 14, 1978 78Do2121 Decided November 14, 1978

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 81No1647 delivered on November 6, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where it is recognized that both frauds committed before and after the final and conclusive judgment had been obtained and frauds committed by the defendant, the two crimes are treated as a blanket one crime regardless of habitual crimes committed. Therefore, the facts charged should be acquitted because it conflicts with res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Do3564 delivered on February 14, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 78Do2121 delivered on November 14, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 79Do2175 delivered on October 30, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 80Do893 delivered on May 27, 1980). Since the above facts charged were found to have been committed by the defendant, the above facts charged cannot be interpreted as a blanket one crime committed by the defendant from around January 14, 197 to around April 297, 197, the final and conclusive judgment cannot be seen as being concurrent with the above facts charged.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)