[2] The case holding that the period of time up to be repatriated and detained in the Republic of Korea after being arrested in the United States in accordance with the extradition treaty with the Government of the United States of America does not constitute the number of days detained pending trial to be included in the sentence

[2] The case holding that the number of days for which the defendant demanded inclusion as days of detention in the principal sentence as days of detention does not constitute days of detention in the principal sentence under Article 57 of the Criminal Code because it is merely a period for taking the extradition procedure after being arrested under the extradition treaty between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America, not the period of compulsory disposition which has been taken inevitably in order

1. As to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of private documents

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the defendants guilty of the fabrication of private documents and the uttering of such private documents among the facts charged in this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as

2. As to the violation of the Securities and Exchange Act

A. In order to establish a crime of violation of Article 188-4 (1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 6695 of Apr. 27, 2002), there must be subjective requirements, in addition to the facts of the conspiracy, the sale and purchase, or the fictitious sale. In order to establish a crime of violation of Article 188-4 (2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act, “the purpose of inducing an investor to trade” refers to “the purpose of inducing an investor to trade securities by misunderstanding that the market price of securities changed by causing human manipulation is formed by the principle of natural demand and supply.” The purpose of each of the above Article is not at issue as to whether the purpose exists for another purpose or is to make a main purpose, and the degree of recognition of its purpose does not require active desire or final recognition, and if there is insufficient recognition, it is sufficient for the parties to the transaction to make a false judgment. This is also sufficient to determine whether there is an indirect substance such as the economic motive and appearance of the securities trading, etc. 10. 20.

In light of the above legal principles and records, it is proper for the court below to determine that the defendant, based on the circumstances as stated in its holding, knew of the fact that the transaction was booming, or caused another person to make a false judgment, and that the defendant ordered high-priced purchase order, so as to induce the sale and purchase, and found guilty of the facts charged, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Article 188-4 (1) and (2) of the former Securities and Exchange Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. In full view of the admitted evidence, the court below convicted all of the facts charged of violating the Securities and Exchange Act as guilty of market price manipulation and false statements in quarterly reports. In light of the records, the decision of the court below is just and there is no error of misapprehending the relevant legal principles or violating the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of

3. As to the suspension of the statute of limitations

Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the statute of limitations shall be suspended in cases where the offender stays abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment. In this case, the purpose of the offender's stay abroad is not to limit the stay abroad solely for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment, but to include the purpose of escaping criminal punishment among various purposes of stay abroad (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7527, Dec. 9, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below was just in holding that the statute of limitations against the defendant was suspended on December 21, 2001 on the ground that at least the purpose of escaping criminal punishment was included in the purpose of escaping criminal punishment from the United States on December 20, 201, and did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the suspension of the statute of limitations, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

4. As to the inclusion of days of pre-trial detention

Article 57 of the Criminal Act provides that pre-trial detention is a compulsory disposition which inevitably detains a defendant or a suspect in order to achieve the purpose of prosecution, and is similar to the type of deprivation of liberty, and therefore, the whole or part of pre-trial detention shall be included in the principal sentence from the perspective of protection of human rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6606, Feb. 11, 2003). The period for which the defendant demanded inclusion in the principal sentence as pre-trial detention detention to achieve the purpose of prosecution is not the period of compulsory disposition taken inevitably, but it is merely the period for taking the extradition procedure after the defendant escaped to the United States after committing a crime, and the defendant was arrested under a extradition treaty between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the pre-trial detention detention detention detention is included in the principal sentence. In addition, as long as the court below partially counted the defendant's pre-trial detention

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)