logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1971. 2. 23. 선고 70도2612 판결
[임산물단속에관한법률위반][집19(1)형,063]
Main Issues

An act performed as a single and continuous intention for a certain period of time is deemed to constitute an inclusive one crime.

Summary of Judgment

It is justifiable to view elderly gathering activities as a single and continuous intention for a certain period of time as an inclusive crime.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 37 of the Criminal Act

Escopics

Defendant 1 and two others

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Busan District Court Decision 70No1029 delivered on October 7, 1970, Busan District Court Decision 70No1029 delivered on October 7, 1970

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The appeal by the prosecutor of Busan District Public Prosecutor's Office is examined.

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court below, based on evidence, that the defendant et al. collected the elderly soil from the Cheongdo-gun's official forest located in Ulsan-gun's official forest located in Ulsan-gun from December 15, 1968 to January 25, 1969 without permission, and there is no illegality in the measure recognized as the defendant et al.'s single and continuous act committed as the defendant et al.'s single act, since it concluded that the continuous collection of the elderly soil was constituted one crime since it constitutes a single crime since it constitutes a comprehensive act of collecting the elderly soil that is one of the first crimes of this comprehensive crimes, namely, the other crime of collecting the elderly soil from January 6, 1969 to January 25, 1969, since the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive with regard to the act of collecting the elderly soil from December 15, 1968 to January 15, 196.

The dissenting opinion argues that this case is not a single case, and that there is no reason to challenge the original judgment.

Therefore, this decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who participated in accordance with Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)

arrow