The method of including the number of days of pre-trial detention in cases where two punishments are sentenced for concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In a case where several criminal defendants who were indicted for committing a crime were detained on the sole basis of a part of the criminal facts, and the court issued a warrant of detention to the defendant after conducting a combined trial of the several criminal facts, and the remaining criminal facts are divided into the punishment for the crime concerning a part of the criminal facts for which a warrant of detention is issued and sentenced to two punishments. In such a case, the issue of whether to include the number of detention days in the punishment for a certain crime is a matter of discretion of the court, and therefore, it may be included in the punishment for other criminal facts for which a warrant of detention has not been issued.

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 86No433 delivered on August 1, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. In a case where the defendant who was prosecuted for several criminal facts was detained by a detention warrant only on the part of the facts constituting the crime for which a warrant of detention has been issued, and the court, after combined trial of several criminal facts, tried to divide the punishment for some criminal facts for which a warrant of detention has been issued to the defendant into the punishment for the remaining criminal facts, and sentenced to two punishments. The number of detention days prior to the imposition of a warrant of detention is concerning the criminal facts for which a warrant of detention has been issued, and thus, it would not be desirable to include them in the punishment for the crime for which a warrant of detention has been issued, even if they are included in the principal sentence

However, in the simultaneous investigation or trial of several criminal facts against the same suspect or defendant, if the suspect or defendant is detained only on some of the criminal facts, it shall be considered that the procedure is diversified and that the detention of the suspect or defendant is unfairly prolonged. In this case, if the inclusion of the detention days prior to the sentencing is permitted only in the principal sentence of the crime against which detention has been executed, it shall be deemed that the procedure is simple and unfair as the measure avoiding the duplicate of detention is rather unfair and unreasonable as the result of the disadvantage of the defendant to prevent the unfair prolonged detention of the suspect or defendant. Thus, in such a case, it is reasonable to view that the effect of detention due to partial criminal facts extends to the remaining criminal facts against the defendant's new illness and the issue of whether the detention days should be included in the punishment for a certain crime is discretionary of the court, and therefore, it may be included in the punishment for other criminal facts for which detention warrant has not been issued.

2. In this case, the court below's judgment was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment (2 years of suspended sentence) and 2 and 3 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes as set forth in Articles 1 and 4 of the judgment below, and 90 days of imprisonment prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was included in imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes as set forth in Articles 2 and 3 of the judgment, is obvious in the records that the period of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance, was the period for which the warrant of detention was issued and was detained for the crimes as set forth in Articles 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance. However, for the above reasons, the court below's appeal that caused the violation of the law

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

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)