In a case where a defendant appealed against a conviction, whether the dismissal part of custody dismissal can be seen as an appeal (negative)

Article 20(8) of the Social Protection Act applies to cases where there is a benefit in filing an appeal concerning custody cases. Since the defendant cannot file an appeal against his/her own disadvantage, even if the defendant appealeds a conviction, if the part of the claim for custody is dismissed and there is no benefit in filing an appeal as the defendant, it shall not be deemed that there exists an appeal against custody cases.

Article 20(8) of the Social Protection Act, Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Prosecutor, Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Choi Do-ho et al.

Gwangju High Court Decision 82No436, 82No96 delivered on August 26, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

First and Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal are examined.

1. Inasmuch as an appeal is filed against a final and conclusive judgment on the premise that one’s own interest has been infringed, since the defendant cannot file an appeal against the higher court for remedy, the defendant cannot file an appeal against his own unfavorable judgment. Thus, even though Article 20(8) of the Social Protection Act provides that the judgment of the defendant in the instant case shall be deemed to have been appealed, waiver or withdrawal of an appeal against the judgment of the custody case in the event of waiver or withdrawal of an appeal, the judgment of the custody case shall also be deemed to have been filed. However, this is applicable to the custody case in which the interests of an appeal exist, i.e., the defendant cannot file an unfavorable appeal against himself/herself. Thus, even if the defendant filed an appeal against a defendant guilty, it shall be concluded that the dismissal of

2. According to the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the court below, the first instance court dismissed the defendant's request for the custody of the defendant for a prosecuted case such as violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, habitual fraud or attempted rape, etc., on the ground that the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment and the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to Article 20 (1) of the Social Act. Accordingly, the court below reversed the defendant's case and sentenced the defendant 10 years of imprisonment, and dismissed the request for the custody of the defendant on the grounds that the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment in the first instance court, but the court below dismissed the request for the custody of the defendant on the grounds that the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment in the first instance court, but the court below sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment in the first instance court. However, the court below's decision that the defendant should be subject to the protective custody under Article 42 of the Social Protection Act, and Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not have any interest in the first instance court which dismissed the request for the defendant's appeal.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant are examined as follows.

When collecting evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, it is sufficiently sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of this case, and it is not possible to mislead the facts by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. On the other hand, in light of the records such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and result of the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing, the amount of the sentence imposed on the defendant by the court below is deemed to be reasonable and there is no evidence to be too unreasonable, and there is no reason for appeal.

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)