[2] In a case where only the prosecutor appealed on the part of the judgment of the appellate court which acquitted or convicted the part of the substantive concurrent crimes, whether the part of the conviction was affirmed (affirmative), and whether the revocation of detention under Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Act after the part of the conviction which was sentenced to imprisonment has become final and conclusive (negative)

[2] In a case where the appellate court's judgment that found the defendant guilty of part of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code was appealed against the part of the acquittal, the part of the conviction that the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal to the court of final appeal is not transferred to the court of final appeal, and the detention warrant becomes effective when the judgment of the sentence of imprisonment becomes final and conclusive against the defendant under detention. Thus, when the judgment of the sentence of imprisonment becomes final and conclusive, the detention warrant is invalidated at the time when the judgment of the conviction of the above case becomes final and conclusive (so, the execution procedure of the sentence for the convicted part which became final and conclusive to continue detention of the defendant). Thus, the court

In addition, in a case where only the prosecutor appealed on the part of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the part of the conviction for which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal to the court of final appeal is not transferred to the court of final appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992). On the other hand, in a case where the judgment on the sentence of imprisonment for the defendant under detention becomes final and conclusive, the detention warrant becomes void. Thus, in a case where the sentence of imprisonment for the above case becomes final and conclusive, the detention warrant becomes void (the execution procedure for the final and conclusive conviction to continue detention of the defendant), and as long as the detention warrant has already become void, the court cannot revoke the decision on the detention under Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. According to the records, the claimant was indicted as concurrent crimes of altering private documents, uttering of altered private documents, and attempted fraud, and the first instance court issued a detention warrant ex officio on April 28, 199 as to the crime of altering private documents and uttering of altered private documents, and as to the crime of attempted fraud, the claimant was arrested by issuing a detention warrant ex officio. As to the guilty portion, the prosecutor appealed the acquittal portion on July 14, 1999, and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal by the prosecutor on July 14, 199, and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal by the prosecutor on July 20, 199. The claimant waived the appeal on the same day and appealed the appeal by the prosecutor on July 20, 199. The claimant filed a final appeal on August 25, 1999 on the ground that the period of punishment expires on August 27, 1999, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have renounced the detention order and thus, the part of the appeal becomes void by the prosecutor on July 1994.

3. Therefore, the motion for revocation of detention is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)