In a case where special amnesty is granted to a person who was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and a fine, whether the portion of the fine also has the effect of amnesty (negative)

In light of the contents and purport of Article 41 of the Criminal Act, Article 5(1)2 and Article 7 of the Amnesty Act, in the event that there are special amnestys to exempt some of the concurrent punishments from the execution of a sentence, or lose the effect of the sentence, with respect to a person on whom multiple concurrent punishments are concurrently imposed, the effect of the special amnestys does not affect the remaining concurrent punishment, and thus, the special amnestys to the effect that the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and the fine lose the effect of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor with respect to the applicant on whom the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and the fine are concurrently imposed do not lose

Article 5(1)2, Article 7 of the AmnestyS Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 96Mo14 decided May 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1956)

Re-appellant

Attorney Lee Jong-sung et al.

Seoul High Court Order 96 seconds58 dated April 18, 1996

The reappeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds for reappeal.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below acknowledged on February 16, 1994 that the re-appellant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and fine of 1,00,000,000 won for the crime such as violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax), violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, violation of the Aggregate Extraction Act, and violation of the Public Waters Management Act, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive. The re-appellant was sentenced on February 25, 1996 to suspend the execution of the above imprisonment for three years. The court below held that the prosecutor was exempted from the execution of the suspended sentence on the ground that "the above imprisonment with prison labor which was suspended under Articles 5 and 7 of the Amnesty Act was invalidated at the same time as the above imprisonment with prison labor which was suspended under Article 94 and 16922 of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office was sentenced to a fine of 25,000,000 won for the applicant," and that "the above special amnesty shall not become void of the sentence of the term of imprisonment."

In light of the contents and purport of Article 41 of the Criminal Code, Article 5 (1) 2 of the Amnesty and Article 7 of the Amnesty Act, if there are special amnestys to exempt some of the concurrent punishments or to lose the effect of sentencing, the effect of such special amnestys shall not affect the remaining concurrent punishments.

In the same purport, the order of the court below holding that the special amnesty in this case does not lose the validity of the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for an applicant who both the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and the suspension of the execution of a fine shall not lose the validity of the sentence of the fine. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the provision of the same Constitution and amnesty, or by violating Article 79 of the Constitution and Article 23 of the Constitution concerning the guarantee of property rights. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)