[1] The number of crimes of door-to-door visit where multiple members visited each other for an election campaign (=general crime)

[2] The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, in case where the scope of punishment is higher than that of concurrent crimes by deeming each door-to-door visit act to be deemed as a single comprehensive crime as concurrent crimes

[1] The crime of door-to-door visits under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is established by continuously visiting two or more houses, and when multiple members visit door-to-door for election campaign, it shall be deemed an inclusive crime.

[2] The case holding that there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment in a case where the scope of applicable sentences is higher due to the aggravation of concurrent crimes by deeming each act of door-to-door visit as concurrent crimes which ought to be considered as an inclusive crime

[1] Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 50 (2) and 172 (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act / [2] Article 383 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 37 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do889 decided Jun. 13, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1564) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1216 decided Feb. 9, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 678)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Jin Tae-tae et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 2006No1373 Decided February 15, 2007

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division. Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief) by the defendant and defense counsel.

1. As to Defendant 1

A. According to the records, since Defendant 1 led to the confession of all the facts charged in this case at the first instance court, the first instance court decided and notified that the above facts charged should be tried through a simplified trial procedure, and the examination of evidence is completed in accordance with the method prescribed in Article 297-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the evidence of the first instance court is admissible in accordance with the provisions of Article 318-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of all the above facts charged, and Defendant 1 maintained confession even at the court below. Accordingly, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the simplified trial procedure, which dismissed Defendant 1’s appeal

B. Since it is clear in the records that Defendant 1 only considered unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal and there is no fact claiming a mistake of facts or a misapprehension of legal principles in the court of original judgment, it is just for the court below to decide on the facts of mistake of facts or a misapprehension of legal principles, and there is no violation of law such as omission of judgment, etc. In addition, as long as Defendant 1 only stated only the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, it cannot be viewed as the grounds for

C. The crime of door-to-door visits under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act is established by continuously visiting two or more houses, and when several members visit each unit for election campaign, it shall be deemed an inclusive crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do889, Jun. 13, 2003). On the contrary, it is erroneous for the lower court to regard each door-to-door visit act against Defendant 1 as concurrent crimes and aggravated punishment by deeming it as concurrent crimes. Since the scope of punishment increases due to the aggravation of concurrent crimes, the lower court’s misapprehension of legal doctrine as to the number of crimes is ultimately affected by the judgment. Accordingly, the allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to Defendant 2

Defendant 2 did not submit the appellate brief within a lawful period, and the appellate brief does not include the grounds for appeal in the appellate brief.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the appeal by Defendant 2 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)