Illegal act that does not separately prescribe punishment for each crime before and after the final judgment.

According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of escape from military service at the ordinary military council of the 36th regular military council of the Army on February 1979, and the probationary sentence has become final and conclusive on August 15, 198, and the crime of injury resulting from continuation and the final and conclusive judgment previously committed are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, among them, the crime of injury resulting from continuation and the final and conclusive judgment of the above final judgment shall be deemed to be concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the defendant shall be sentenced

Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do1487 delivered on December 6, 1966, 66Do1487 (Supreme Court Decision 3671 delivered on December 16, 196, Supreme Court Decision 14B-61 delivered on December 61, 196, Decision 37(11) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 81 High Court Decision 81Gohap19)

The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months and by imprisonment for not more than six months for a crime of No. 2 of the judgment of the court below.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the punishment for the first crime as shown on ninety five days.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that even though the defendant did not commit the second fact at the time of the original trial, the court below recognized the fact and affected the judgment, and even if not, the court below's sentencing against the defendant is too unreasonable.

However, according to the court below's decision ex officio, the court below deemed the injury by continuation 1 and 2 as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and applied the prescribed legal provisions to one year. According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months at the 36th ordinary military council of the Army on February 1979, and the probationary sentence became final and conclusive on August 15 of the same year. Thus, the crime of injury by continuation 1 of the original city constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the crime of injury by continuation 1 of the original city is sentenced to punishment for the above crime of injury by continuation 2 of the original city, but the crime of injury by continuation 2 of the original city without a judgment is not in concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, even though each punishment should be determined separately, the judgment of the court below which did not reach the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided after pleading.

Since the criminal facts recognized as a member and the evidence of them are the same as those of the court below, they shall be quoted as they are.

However, the court below's judgment falls under Article 257 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Code. Since the crime of injury by continuation and the first head of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the defendant is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the same Code, since the crime of deprivation of Military Duty, which had been the final judgment of the first head of the judgment in the judgment of the court below, is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the same Code, it separately determines punishment for the crime of injury by continuation and injury by continuation under Article 39 (1) of the same Act. Since the first head of the judgment of the defendant is the first one, the crime of injury by continuation of existence under Article 35 of the same Act is a repeated crime under Article 35 of the same Act, and the defendant is guilty for taking into account the circumstances such as where his mistake after the crime in this case was committed in depth, it shall be included in the punishment of the defendant 1 and 2 within the scope of punishment for each of the crimes under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act.

Judges Ansan-sik (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)