B. Whether the court below was included in the number of days pending trial where the court below was reversed by Defendant’s appeal

B. In this case where the defendants filed an appeal and reversed the judgment of the court of first instance in the court below, and the number of days of detention in the court of the court below against the defendants is entirely calculated by law in accordance with Article 482(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the court below's decision that was not included in the

In full view of the evidence cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the facts of the crime as stated in its reasoning. As such, it cannot be said that the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by erroneously applying the law. The argument is that each of the lands of this case conforms to the substantive relationship, on the premise that each of the lands of this case was owned by the inheritee, and thus, the registration of preservation of ownership and registration of transfer in the name of the Defendants is consistent with the substantive relationship. Therefore, the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed is not established. However, since each of the lands

In addition, as pointed out in the paper, the "notarial deed" as referred to in Article 228 of the Criminal Act refers only to a notarial deed as to rights and obligations, and since any fact certification is not included, it does not constitute a notarial deed as referred to in the above, land cadastre which does not change the rights and obligations. However, in this case, it is obvious that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the concept of notarial deed and there is no argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the notarial deed.

In addition, in case where the defendant appealed and the original judgment was reversed, the whole number of days of detention after the appeal is to be included in the principal sentence in accordance with Article 482(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, in this case where the defendants reversed the judgment of the first instance in the original court by filing an appeal and sold the judgment by the court below, the number of days of detention to the defendants in the original court is to be included in the court. Thus, the court below's decision

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)