Number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

In this case, the original judgment can not be a ground for attacking the original judgment because the original judgment has returned to the original judgment as the mistake of facts and the decision of unfair sentencing, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

(2) As to the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel:

Since habitual crime refers to the tendency of a criminal who commits a crime, the habitual crime does not constitute the nature of the crime, and there is no restriction on the materials of habitual crime. In this case, the first instance court's judgment maintained by the court below clearly recognized the habitual nature of the same crime in two lawsuits in this case based on the records that there are five criminal records of the act of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and therefore, there is no illegality in recognizing habitual nature of the defendant. Since it is obvious that the facts of the first instance judgment are attempted to commit a crime of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, it is clear that the court below's judgment should have written the Article 6 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., in applying the Act, and it is not proper to cease Article 352 of the Criminal Act on the attempted crime, rather than on the other hand, since the judgment of the court below affected the result of the judgment of this case, it can be viewed that the application of the Act is reasonable.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition by the unanimous assent of all judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Code.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Marins (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea