logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.23 2017노819
위증교사
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable as the punishment (amounting to eight million won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Before ex officio determination of the grounds for appeal, the term “a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive” falls under concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, where a crime for which judgment has not been rendered and a crime for which judgment has not been made final and conclusive under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is to be concurrently sentenced in consideration of equity and where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with the crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, punishment for such crime shall not be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity and the case for which judgment has already become final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203 Decided May 16, 201). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 20 years and the final and conclusive judgment of not more than 16 months for which judgment has become final and conclusive (the final and conclusive judgment of not more than 2.16 years).

Nevertheless, the establishment of a principal offender for a crime committed in the judgment of the court below, which was low after the date when the final judgment of the court below became final and conclusive, constitutes part of the elements for establishing a principal offender, and the establishment of a principal offender constitutes a principal offender’s criminal act (Supreme Court Decision 201Da10889, Jan. 28, 2010

arrow