Cases of erroneous inclusion of pre-trial detention

In a case where a combined trial is conducted on several facts charged, the legitimate detention warrant on one of the facts charged also extends to other facts charged, and even if the facts charged for which a detention warrant was issued is not guilty, the number of days of detention pending trial should be included in the term of punishment of the facts charged guilty.

Article 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (66 high-level3146) 201

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

One hundred days of detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

First, the prosecutor's appeal is finland from the date of appeal. The court below's decision that recognized the whole facts of the crime and sentenced to four months of imprisonment is unreasonable. However, considering the records, the court below's sentencing is unreasonable and it is not reasonable to find the reasons for the defendant's appeal. The defendant is detained on July 23, 196 as well as the crime of abduction. The court below sentenced the defendant to four months of imprisonment only on the ground of the violation of the Food Sanitation Act, since it is proper for the defendant to be sentenced to one of the charges of detention without prison labor for the same time as the defendant's new charges of detention, and it is reasonable for the court below to determine that the defendant's new charges of detention should be issued for the same time as the defendant's new charges of detention without prison labor for the same time as the defendant's new charges of detention. The court below's decision that did not include the above charges of imprisonment for the same time as the defendant's new charges of detention for the same time as the defendant's new charges of imprisonment for the same time as the defendant's new charges of detention. The court below's new charges of 9.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows.

Since the criminal facts and evidence relations against the defendant are the same as those stated in the judgment of the court below, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the court below's decision falls under Articles 44 (1), 23 (1), and 22 of the Food Sanitation Act. Since the court below's decision in this case is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, since the court below's decision in this case has selected imprisonment with prison labor, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 4 months within the scope of aggravated punishment under Article 38 (1) and Article 50 of the same Act, and one hundred days from the number of detention days before the court below's decision in accordance with Article 57 of the same Act shall be included in the above sentence.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Justice)