Whether the period of detention in a detention house of the United States of America, which was detained due to the above criminal act, should be included in the punishment for the crime committed by robbery in Korea.

If a member of the United States Armed Forces who committed robbery in the Republic of Korea is detained in a detention house of the United States Armed Forces after the crime was committed, the number of days of detention under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, and Article 22 (9) of the Agreement on Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea, as a member of the United States Armed Forces, shall be included in the principal sentence for the above crime under Article 57 of the Criminal Act.

Article 57 of the Criminal Code, Article 22 of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement relating to Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (89 High Court Decision 850)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

154 days of detention before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel No. 1 is that the defendant is guilty by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles that are inconsistent with the defendant's statement, and that the defendant was guilty by reliance on the type of the taxi driver who is the victim of this case and the prepaid of the taxi fee, and that the defendant was flicked in the taxi. Despite the fact that the defendant and the defendant suffered each injury in the head because the above transmission profit goes beyond one another, the above transmission profit goes beyond one another, and even though there is no inconsistency with the defendant's head, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the defendant by reliance on the above transmission profit which is not reliable. The second point is that the injury suffered by the above transmission profit due to this case was not large, and that the defendant was dedicated to the defense of our homeland as a soldier belonging to the US forces, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable

First of all, the first ground for appeal by the defense counsel is examined as to the first ground for appeal by comparing the various evidences duly adopted by the court below with the records, and it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant, which the court below decided, and there is a contradiction in the statement of the above transmission profits or there is no credibility, and therefore there is no ground to see that the court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Then, prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by defense counsel No. 2, the defendant can be found to have been detained in a detention center of the United States Armed Forces since October 27, 1989 due to the criminal facts of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below should be counted in the calculation of the number of days of detention prior to the declaration of the court below in accordance with Item (b) of Article 22 of the Agreement under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States Armed Forces and the United States Armed Forces in Korea and Article 57 of the Criminal Act, on the grounds that the court below did not apply the above number of days of detention prior to the declaration of the court below to the calculation of the number of days of detention prior to the declaration of the court below in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a party member is reversed ex officio and subject to pleading, and the following is again decided as follows.

At around 22:00 on June 10, 1989, the Defendant: (a) 21:05, at the front of the Seoul Hospital located in Dong-gu, 21:05, got on the back seat by pretending passengers to drive (vehicle number omitted); (b) 3:00 won from the victim and 63,00 U.S. currency 21 week from the victim; and (c) took them on the front of the mother factory located in Yan-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul; and (d) 2:00 on the same day, the Defendant got on the back seat; and (e) took a cement block that the said taxi had been holding on the front of the mother factory located in Yan-gu, Youngju-gu, Gyeonggi-do; and (e) took a cement block 1 time, she took the back part of the victim; and (e) took the victim’s resistance against the victim, and (e) took the victim’s 63,000 won from the victim; and (e.

The facts of the judgment

1. A statement made by the defendant to the effect that the defendant was involved in two crime prevention guards boarding the same taxi at the same time and place as the victim's day and place in the holding, and thereafter, he/she was involved in the same taxi;

1. Statement corresponding thereto to the examination of the sealing of witnesses in the second trial records of the trial of the party concerned;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto in the second trial records of the court below, which corresponds to the witness's interest in the paper, Kim-soo, and the fifth trial records of the court below;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto among the statements made by a public prosecutor and the assistant judicial police officers concerning their transmission income;

1. Statement corresponding to the statement in the preparation of Kim Jong-soo;

1. From among the 9th trial records of the lower court, it can be recognized in full view of the statements and records that correspond to the part and degree of injury as indicated in the judgment among the diagnosis documents as to the statement of the Kim Jong-chul's statement and the transmission profit of the preparation of the same person.

The defendant's act of judgment falls under Article 337 of the Criminal Act. The defendant selected a limited term of imprisonment, and the defendant is a first offender who is dispatched to Korea from the United States of America and is working for Korea, and the degree of injury to the defendant, who is the victim, and there are reasons to take into account the circumstances, such as the fact that all damaged articles return to the victim, etc., they shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to three years and six months within the scope of the term of punishment for which discretionary mitigation has been made in accordance with Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act. As to Article 22 (9) of the above Agreed Minutes and Article 57 of the Criminal Act, the number of detention days before the sentence is made shall be included in the above sentence.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)