Criteria for determining the gravity of punishment for each crime in the case of adding "when the punishment prescribed for a crime other than the same or similar crime is the most severe" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act.

In calculating the term of punishment under Article 5 (1) 1 and (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act, the phrase “when the punishment prescribed for a crime other than the same or similar crime is the most severe” under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined in accordance with the general principles concerning the seriousness of the punishment prescribed in Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and it shall not be deemed that the court which sentenced the judgment in a specific case refers to the case where the court which sentenced the judgment is the most severe crime in the relevant case.

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Park Jong-chul et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 85No1562 delivered on January 28, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the imprisonment.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant and the respondent for defense and his/her defense counsel.

In calculating the term of punishment under Article 5 (1) 1 and 5 (2) 1 of the Social Protection Act, the phrase “when the punishment prescribed for a crime other than the same or similar crime is the most severe” under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be determined in accordance with the general principles concerning the seriousness of the punishment as provided in Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and it shall not be deemed that the court which sentenced the judgment in a specific case refers to the case where the court which sentenced the judgment is the most severe crime in the relevant case.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in the case of the Daegu High Court 78No842 case and the Supreme Court 78Do3196 case against the defendant and the requester for detention, who are the subject of the judgment to sum up the term of punishment of this case, based on the aforementioned legal interpretation, the court below held that the Daegu High Court erred by misapprehending the legal principles of punishment under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act where the defendant and the requester for detention were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for five years within the scope of punishment where the punishment for concurrent crimes of uttering of minor documents is more severe than the punishment for concurrent crimes committed at night, night, theft of residence, fabrication of public documents, and uttering of the same crime under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Social Protection Act and the punishment for concurrent crimes under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act cannot be applied to the case under Article 50(2) of the same Act.

2. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 2.

As in this case, the judgment which sentenced a 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment cannot be deemed as a legitimate ground for appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing under the Criminal Procedure Act, and as long as the judgment legitimately satisfies the requirements for custody, the court has no discretion to change the period of custody. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)