The validity of the text of a judgment which includes the number of days less than the number of days for statutory circulation under Article 515 of the Gun Law Meeting Act by the second instance court;

Article 515 of the former Military Court Act (amended by Act No. 2539, Feb. 17, 73) (amended by Act No. 2539, Feb. 17, 200) in cases where the number of days of pre-trial detention is calculated by law, even if the court below sentenced the judgment to include the number of days less than the number of days of pre-trial detention by mistake in the text of the judgment, it is merely an unlegally meaningful measure, and it does not exclude

Article 515 of the Military Court Act, Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Appellant

Attorney Shin Tae-ok

Army, High Court Decision 62 High Court Decision 493 delivered on February 8, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The forty days of detention days prior to the judgment in this Court shall be included in the original sentence of the original judgment.

The first ground for appeal by the defense counsel is examined.

However, according to the trial records of February 8, 1963 of the court below, it is clear that the military court's meeting of the court below consists of large-pungnam, use of the order of the presiding judge, the middle-presidential system of a certified judicial scrivener, the conduct of a certified judicial scrivener's subrogation, the conduct of a trial of this case among the judges, and the conclusion of the trial of this case on that day. Although the signature and seal of the middle-presidential character of the judge is omitted in the written judgment, it cannot be said that the composition of the court below is illegal or that the judgment is made contrary to the previous Supreme Court precedents, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, if the number of days of pre-trial detention is calculated by law in accordance with the provision of Article 515 of the Military Court Act, even if the court below sentenced the judgment to include the number of days which is less than the number of days of pre-trial detention in the court order, it is merely an unlegal meaning and it does not exclude the sum of the courts due to this, so it cannot be said that the defendant's fundamental rights are infringed. Therefore

Finally, the gist of the defendant's grounds of appeal is that the court below's argument that the defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years only based on the prosecutor's argument that the defendant was illegal. Thus, the defendant's grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal since it does not fall under any of the grounds of appeal under Article 432 of the Military Court Act. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the 40 days of detention days prior to the judgment of the court below was included in the original sentence in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, and all of the judges involved in the case are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-con (Presiding Justice)