Whether the number of detention days under confinement can be included in the principal sentence of the crime of Eul in the case of Eul, where the period of detention of Gap's case was actually used in the investigation of the crime of Eul, although the period of detention of Gap's case was detained as the case of Gap's case (negative)

The defendant was detained for 27 days due to the suspected crime, such as violation of the Credit Card Business Act, in which the indictment was suspended, and was detained due to the crime such as fraud, and prosecuted for the crime of fraud, but the detention period was eventually used in the investigation of the crime, such as fraud, the above detention period cannot be included in the principal sentence of fraud even if it was actually used.

Article 57 of the Criminal Act, Article 201 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No4319 delivered on September 13, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

80 days, out of the number of days pending trial after appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The issue is that it is illegal that the period previously detained was not included in the principal sentence of this case since the defendant was bound by the crime of this case, such as the fraud, etc., as the period under which the defendant was detained as the case of violating the Credit Card Business Act.

According to the records, the defendant was detained before he was prosecuted for committing a crime such as the fraud of this case (in this case, a detention warrant was issued on March 27, 1990 and executed on that day). The defendant's detention period from March 1, 1990 to March 27 of the same month due to a violation of the Credit Card Business Act, etc. Accordingly, even if the above detention period was actually used for the investigation of criminal facts such as the fraud of this case, the above detention period shall not be included in the principal sentence of the crime of this case. Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport does not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as just.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)