beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the crimes I, II.1. A, and B, the part concerning the facts constituting the crime is reversed.
The defendant is judged by the court below.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (criminal facts I, II.1. A. B. and B: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months, and the remainder of imprisonment for six months) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio judgment (related to crimes I, II.1. A, B)
A. In light of the relevant legal principles and the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, in cases where a crime for which judgment has not yet been rendered could not be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, the relationship of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act cannot be established, and the sentence cannot be imposed or mitigated or remitted in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment is to be rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.
On the other hand, as multiple crimes which have not yet been adjudicated were committed before and after the final judgment became final and conclusive, the crimes committed before and after the final judgment cannot be judged concurrently with the crimes for which the final judgment became final and conclusive, the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is recognized as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 38 of the Criminal Act, and Article 38 of the Criminal Act cannot be deemed to apply to such multiple crimes. Therefore, separate punishment for each crime committed before and after the final judgment becomes final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). (2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, including the final and conclusive judgment against the Defendant, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and the final and conclusive judgment became final and conclusive on January 21, 2010 (hereinafter “the final judgment”) and three years of suspended execution, etc. (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment”).