It is not related to construction of Article 62② whether “suspension of execution of a part of a imprisonment” is admitted or not, because a concept of ‘a part’ in Article 62② and a concept of ‘a part’ in suspension of execution of a part of a imprisonment are different. The question of “suspension of execution of a part of a imprisonment” is related to construction of Article 62①. While article 62① provide requisites for suspension of execution of sentence, Article 62② provide only suspension of execution of a part of sentence in case of concurrent imposing of punishment by article 62①. Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend that article 62② provide another requisites for suspension of execution of sentence as article 62①. And it is unreasonable to interpret “… the execution of the sentence may be suspended” as “… the execution of the whole of a sentence may be suspended” in article 62①. Because a concept of ‘a part’ in suspension of execution of a part of a sentence and a concept of ‘a part’ in Article 62② are different essentially, and because a concept of ‘the whole’ in suspension of execution of a part of a sentence and a concept of ‘the whole’ in Article 62② are different essentially. And ‘a sentence’ has two meaning: a sentence against a crime and a sentence against several crimes. Therefore, it is unreasonable to interpret that ‘a sentence’ in article 62② and in suspension of execution of a part of a sentence have same meaning. It is proper that suspension of execution of a part of a imprisonment is solved by not interpretation but legislation, because it is of great no advantage to the accused.