The case that the appellate court reversed and rendered a decision on the grounds that the number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance was not included.

Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that all or part of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment shall be included in the period of confinement or detention, except in the case of statutory inclusion under Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to the records, since it is clear that the defendant was detained from March 8, 1995 to the date of the first instance judgment after the institution of the public prosecution of this case, the judgment of the court below which did not include the above detention days shall be reversed and remanded on the ground that there was an error of law that does not apply to the law.

Article 57 of the Criminal Act, Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do443 delivered on November 13, 1979 (Gong1980, 12370) Supreme Court Decision 91Do1926 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 2765) Supreme Court Decision 94Do1354 delivered on July 29, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2248), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1662 delivered on September 29, 195 (Gong195Ha, 365)

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 95No1405 delivered on May 17, 1996

The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years. 60 days out of the number of detention days before the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered shall be included in the above sentence. The amount of KRW 9,

1. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in comparison with the records, it is just for the court below to find the defendant guilty of committing each of the crimes of violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act, and it cannot be deemed that the court below erred in finding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

2. We examine ex officio.

According to the records, the court below rejected the prosecutor's grounds for appeal, reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant, and sentenced the defendant to two years of imprisonment, and at the same time sentenced to the collection of 9,720,000 won from the defendant, and did not include the number of days of detention before the judgment of the court of first instance

However, according to Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act, except for the case of statutory inclusion under Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the whole or part of the detention days prior to the sentence shall be included in the period of imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for abandonment, fine or minor fine, and according to the records, it is evident that the defendant was detained from March 8, 1995 to the date of the sentence of the first instance. Thus, the court below's judgment which did not include the above detention days is erroneous in the application of Acts and subordinate statutes. Since it is evident that the above illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment, the judgment of the court below shall not be maintained.

3. However, according to records and the evidence examined by the court below, this case is deemed to be sufficient for a direct judgment of the party members. Thus, it is decided by Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is sufficient to prove the facts charged in this case against the defendant, but the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the examination of relevant evidence by the records is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the

The criminal facts and the summary of the evidence against the defendant recognized as a party member are the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and they are quoted in accordance with Articles 399 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In light of the law, each so-called Psychotropic Drugs Control Act's decision is so-called a punishment for each crime under Article 42 (1) 1, Article 4 (1) and Article 2 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant has a previous criminal record of the first head of the decision that the execution of the sentence is terminated, so Article 35 of the Criminal Act imposes a heavy penalty for each repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act. Since the violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act's decision and the violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act' decision that became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act's decision that have not yet become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, each crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is a concurrent crime under Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the punishment shall be aggravated within the scope of the punishment under Article 4 of the Criminal Act's decision that is most severe within the scope of punishment under Article 42 of the Criminal Act's decision.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)