Whether Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional or not.

The provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act do not violate the Constitution that guarantees the right of citizens to a trial.

Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 26 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 76Do3076 Decided November 9, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 79Do2639 Decided January 15, 1980

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-ho

Jeonju District Court Decision 85No645 delivered on April 19, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The twenty-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

In this case, we cannot accept the argument to the effect that the sentence of the court below to the effect that the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year cannot be considered as the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that the sentence of the court below is too excessive.

In other words, a defense counsel asserts that the above provision is a violation of the Constitution guaranteeing the right to a trial of the people, but that the above provision does not violate the Constitution is a precedent of the party members (see Supreme Court Decisions 76Do3076 delivered on November 9, 1976 and 79Do2639 delivered on January 15, 1980).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)