The case reversing the appellate court's judgment that did not disclose that the number of days pending trial was included in the second sentence of the court of first instance while dismissing Defendant's appeal; and

The case reversing the judgment of the appellate court which did not state whether the number of detention days prior to the judgment of the court of first instance should be included in the sentence of the court of first instance, where the number of detention days prior to the judgment of the court of first instance is included in the sentence of the court of first instance, while the appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal, and the number of detention days prior to the judgment of the court of first instance is included in the sentence of the court of first instance, on the ground that the judgment of the appellate court which did not properly state the number of detention days prior to the

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Do2637 delivered on February 23, 1988 (Gong1988,626) 88Do534 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong1988,1047) 91Do1926 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong191,2765)

Defendant

Defendant’s defense counsel (Koreanate) Attorney Kim Dong-young

Cheongju District Court Decision 95No23 delivered on April 24, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred and twenty days of detention days of the original court after appeal shall be included in the penalty for each crime under paragraph (3) of the judgment of the first instance.

1. We examine the defendant and state appointed defense counsel's grounds for appeal.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court of first instance in comparison with the records, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of the crime of this case. As discussed in the judgment of the court below, it cannot be deemed that there was an error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in violation of the Constitution, Acts, orders, or rules with respect to the judgment on which two and half years of imprisonment and six months of imprisonment were sentenced, as stated in this case, on the grounds that the amount of punishment is unreasonable. Thus, there is no ground for appeal.

2. We examine ex officio.

In a case where the appellate court dismissed the defendant's appeal and included the period of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance in the sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, if there are two or more sentence of the court of first instance, it should clarify which period should be included in the sentence. According to the records, the court below dismissed the defendant's appeal and did not state that "one hundred and twenty days of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance should be included in the sentence of the court of first instance" while the court below stated that "one hundred and twenty days of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance should be included in the sentence of the court of first instance," and it did not state that one of the two sentence should be included in the sentence of the court of first instance if both are included in the sentence of the court of first instance. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is not proper and it is obvious that this case affected the result of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is deemed sufficient to be judged by the records

3. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that there exists an error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance and an unreasonable sentencing. However, according to the various evidences duly adopted by the court of first instance, the criminal facts of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance can be sufficiently recognized, and even considering the records, there are no errors as discussed in the process of fact-finding of the court of first instance, and even if considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant in detail, the determination of the sentence imposed by the court of first instance against the defendant even if considering the circumstances asserted by the court of first instance are considered, and it cannot be deemed that it is too unreasonable. Accordingly, any argument on the appeal by the defendant cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is dismissed without merit, and one hundred and twenty days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the punishment for each crime under paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)