The case holding that, in accordance with the purport of the reversal and return of the Supreme Court's reversal, the grounds for detention of the defendant are extinguished even if the defendant is currently under the suspension of execution, since it is obvious that the period of detention before the court of first instance and the court of appeal, even if the defendant's appeal is dismissed, should exceed the term of punishment, since the defendant and the prosecutor appealed again, but the prosecutor's appeal is accepted.

In accordance with the purport of the reversal and return of the Supreme Court, if the defendant and the prosecutor re-appealed the appellate judgment which reversed the judgment of the first instance and sentenced to partial acquittal of the facts charged, the prosecutor's appeal shall not be deemed to be accepted. Even if the defendant's appeal is dismissed, if it is evident that the detention period alone exceeds the term of the principal sentence that requires detention, it cannot be said that even if the defendant is currently under the suspension of execution, it does not constitute a ground for continuing the detention of the defendant, and therefore, the reason for the detention of the defendant is extinguished.

Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 63 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4540, Sep. 13, 1990)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan High Court Order 91.3.25, 90 seconds16

The reappeal is dismissed.

According to the records, the defendant was detained on February 9, 190 and sentenced to one year (125 days of detention days before sentencing shall be included in the principal sentence) from the first instance court on June 18, 199, and the defendant and the prosecutor appealed on June 20 of the same year on November 22, 199, the appellate court reversed the first instance judgment, sentenced to one year of imprisonment (125 days of detention days before sentencing of the first instance judgment) from among the facts charged, and the defendant appealed on November 29 of the same year from the public prosecutor on November 29 of the same year. On January 29, 191, the part of the appellate court acquitted and acquitted the defendant on the part of the case remanded, and it is clear that the appellate court reversed the first instance judgment on March 25, 191, and sentenced to one year imprisonment (one hundred and twenty-five days of detention days before sentencing of the first instance judgment, including the number of days of detention days before sentencing of the first instance judgment, and it is clear that the defendant and the defendant were detained under the first instance judgment.

According to the records, as the defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on June 5, 1989 and became final and conclusive on January 31, 1990, it can be known that he is still under the suspension of execution, but it cannot be said that it constitutes a ground for continuing the detention of the defendant, and it does not seem that there is any reason for continuing the detention of the defendant.

If so, the reason for the detention of the defendant is to be extinguished, so the court below's revocation of the detention of the defendant is just and acceptable from the same view.

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)