logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1986. 10. 28. 선고 86도1661,86감도199 판결
[강도상해,보호감호,특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반][공1986.12.15.(790),3158]
Main Issues

Whether discretionary mitigation is for the period of protective custody

Summary of Judgment

When the period of protective custody meets the protective custody requirement, the court shall not reduce or exempt the protective custody at its discretion.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 5 of the Social Protection Act, Article 53 of the Criminal Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 84Do223, 84Do344 Decided November 13, 1984 (Dong District Court Decision 86Do202 Decided October 28, 1986 (Dong District Court Decision 86Do207 Decided October 28, 1986)

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Defendant-Appellant 1 and two others

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendants and Appellants for Custody

Defense Counsel

Attorney Go-hee (Law No. 540, May 1, 200)

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 86Do1355,86No138 Decided July 11, 1986

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

From among days of detention pending trial after appeal, 50 days shall be included in imprisonment.

Reasons

1. Defendant 1, 2, and the said Defendants’ grounds of appeal are also examined.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the sentencing of the court below against the above Defendants is excessive, and in this case where a sentence of less than 10 years is imposed against the defendants, the unfair sentencing decision cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Therefore, it is without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant 3 and his state appointed defense counsel together.

In full view of the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, it is sufficiently sufficient to recognize a crime such as the time of original adjudication, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and as long as the period of protective custody satisfies the requirements of protective custody, the court cannot reduce or exempt it at its discretion.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in the imprisonment with prison labor. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)

arrow