When the previous conviction, which is the requirement to cancel the suspension of execution, is discovered.

The cancellation of the suspended sentence refers to the case where the grounds of the proviso of Article 62 of the Criminal Act are discovered only after the judgment of the suspended sentence becomes final and conclusive, and in the case where it is already dismissed before the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the request for cancellation of the suspended

Article 64 of the Criminal Act, Article 335 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 81Mo44 Dated January 19, 1982 76Mo12 Dated April 14, 1976

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Order 83Ro18 dated December 19, 1983

The reappeal is dismissed.

The Prosecutor's grounds for reappeal are examined.

According to Article 64 of the Criminal Code, when the reasons for the proviso of Article 62 of the same Act are discovered after the suspension of execution is sentenced, the cancellation of the suspension of execution shall be demanded by the prosecutor. According to Article 335 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the cancellation of the suspension of execution shall be demanded by the prosecutor. Thus, when it is discovered that the person who was sentenced to the suspension of execution under Article 64 of the Criminal Code is not more than five years after the completion or exemption of the execution after the suspension of execution is sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or more severe punishment, i.e., the reason for the suspension of execution under Article 62 of the same Act, i.e., the case where the above reasons are discovered only after the suspension of execution becomes final and conclusive, and if it is already discovered before the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the request for cancellation of the suspension of execution may not be made (see

In the same purport, it is reasonable to view that the court below affirmed the first instance court's decision dismissing the instant claim, on the ground that it was found that the facts which became final and conclusive in the period of suspended sentence under Article 82No1790 of the Daegu High Court, which became final and conclusive first of all, were discovered in the public trial prior to the pronouncement of suspended sentence by the said Daegu High Court, and that the prosecutor had been aware of the criminal records of the suspended sentence, which became final and conclusive in the public trial prior to the pronouncement of suspended sentence by the said Daegu High Court, was justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the interpretation of the proviso of Articles 64 and

Ultimately, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)