Whether an incomplete hearing on the circumstances may be the ground for appeal in a case which cannot be considered as the grounds for appeal (negative)

With respect to a judgment sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years and six months or a four-year sentence, it may not be the grounds of appeal on the grounds that the determination of a sentence is unreasonable, nor shall the fact-finding court conduct a proper deliberation on the circumstances subject to the conditions of sentencing as

Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 51 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

A and 3 others

Defendants

Attorney B and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 90No629 delivered on July 6, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be calculated by adding one hundred days to the original sentence.

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2 by attorney C

In addition, according to the records, the presiding judge of the first instance court has lawfully completed the examination of evidence as to eight copies of the photographs submitted by the prosecutor as evidence, and it is obvious that the defendants and defense counsel agree that the examination report of the victim's intention was admissible as evidence. Thus, there is no reason to discuss it.

The Supreme Court Decision 67Do613 Decided July 4, 1967 ruled that the plaintiff or his defense counsel did not agree that the plaintiff or his defense counsel could be admitted as evidence, and thus it is not appropriate to invoke it in this case.

2. Each of the grounds of appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsels and the grounds of appeal by the first instance court and by the attorney C as to the third and fourth grounds of appeal.

If the evidence of the first instance court affirmed by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, all the facts charged of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Bodily Injury) and the facts charged of robbery against the Defendants can be recognized. The judgment of the court below did not properly err by misapprehending the legal principles on robbery, bodily injury, or joint principal offense, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on robbery, bodily injury, or joint principal

3. Judgment on the second ground of appeal by attorney B

In this case, with respect to a judgment on which three years and six months or four years of imprisonment was sentenced as in this case, it cannot be viewed as the grounds of appeal on the grounds that the amount of punishment is unreasonable, and it cannot be viewed as the grounds of appeal on the grounds that the fact-finding court did not properly examine the circumstances under which the sentencing conditions are imposed (see Supreme Court Decision 89Do2437 delivered on February 9, 190), and there is no ground of appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the first instance judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)