A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten months and not more than two years for a crime set forth in Article 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be included in the punishment for the crime No. 2 of the above judgment.

The appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal and included the period of pre-trial detention in the sentence of the court of first instance in the case where there are two or more sentence of the court of first instance, and according to the records, the court below dismissed the defendant's appeal and did not state that "80 days of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance should be included in the sentence of the court of first instance," and it did not state that "80 days of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance should be included in the sentence of the court of first instance" in which the court of first instance should be included in the sentence of the court of first instance, and it did not state that "the period of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance should be included in the sentence of the court of

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this case is deemed sufficient to be judged based on the records of trial and the evidence investigated by the court of first instance. Thus, it is decided directly by a member of the party under Article 396(1)

According to the records, since it is clear that the defendant was born on June 2, 1968 and has reached an adult age at the time of sentencing, the judgment of the court of first instance, which sentenced an irregular sentence on the ground that the defendant was a juvenile as referred to in Article 2 of the Juvenile Act, became unable to maintain it in an unlawful manner. Accordingly, it is reversed ex officio, and it is

The summary of the facts constituting the crime of this case and the evidence of this case is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Articles 399 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 35(1) and (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the crime of embezzlement of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below among the acts of the defendant who is not guilty shall be included in Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act provides that Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall apply; Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act provides that the crime of embezzlement of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below among the acts of the defendant shall be included in Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 2(d) of the Criminal Act provides that Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that the punishment of the defendant shall be subject to aggravated punishment of the first half of the judgment of the court below; Article 333 of the Criminal Act provides that the punishment of the second half of the punishment of the defendant shall be subject to aggravated punishment of the first sentence of Article 7 of the Criminal Act.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)