The subject of additional collection in cases where there is a change of damage;

Even if the offender consumeds the money and valuables received from the victim and returned the money and valuables corresponding thereto, and thereby made a change in the damage, the amount of money and valuables shall be collected from the offender.

Articles 48(1) and 48(2) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Do796 Decided September 5, 1967

Defendant

Attorney Park Ji-hoon

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 79No1273 delivered on April 2, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

From among detention days pending trial, 40 days shall be included in the principal sentence.

The Defendant’s grounds of appeal and the Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below fully recognized the facts charged against the defendant, but this is due to the failure of the court below to properly grasp the facts, and it is summary to the purport that there was a misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment, as well as a misunderstanding of the legal principles of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

Therefore, in light of the records, we affirm the criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 54 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and there is no error in failing to exhaust all deliberation.

All of the arguments are without merit.

The defendant's second ground for appeal is examined.

In relation to the criminal act, it is the opinion maintained by the principal source that the defendant should collect money and valuables corresponding to the money and valuables received from the victim, not as it is, but as it was returned to the victim. On the other hand, even if he/she consumeded the money and returned the money and valuables corresponding to the money and valuables received as compensation for damages (see Supreme Court Decision 67Do796, Sept. 5, 1967). According to the records in this case, it is clear that the defendant received 7 million won from the victim's ward at the time of original adjudication and consumed the money and has returned the amount of money and valuables equivalent to 7 million won, so the amount should be collected. Accordingly, the court below ordering the collection of money and valuables for the same purport is just and it cannot be said that there is a misunderstanding of legal principles as to the collection of money and valuables.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. Article 57 of the Criminal Act provides that 40 days out of the days of pre-trial detention shall be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice)