In the appellate judgment concurrently sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and a fine, it is necessary to specify the punishment to include the number of days pending trial in court (negative)

In a case where the appellate court accepted the defendant's appeal and reversed the judgment of the first instance court, and sentenced the defendant to a punishment of two years and six months in prison, four years in suspended sentence, and a fine of 50,000,000 won in prison, it is natural that the appellate court did not make an explicit decision on this point in the appellate court, since the judgment of the first instance, which was delivered to the court of first instance pursuant to Article 482 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, included the number of days of detention prior to the judgment of the appellate court in the period of imprisonment with prison labor and any one of the period of imprisonment with prison labor, should be executed

Articles 482(1) and 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Orala et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 89No455 delivered on April 12, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

(1) The grounds of appeal by a state appointed defense counsel and the grounds of appeal by a defense counsel are examined together with (3).

According to the timely evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the judgment of the court below, the measures that recognized the customs value and domestic wholesale price of the goods in violation of this case as stated in its holding are acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal No. 1 after the defense counsel's illness.

The court below accepted the defendant's appeal and reversed the judgment of the court of first instance, and sentenced the defendant to the punishment of two years and six months in prison, four years in suspended sentence, and 50,000,00 won in prison. After the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the number of days of detention prior to the judgment of the court of first instance shall be legally binding pursuant to the provisions of Article 482 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and whether the above period shall be included in one of the period of imprisonment with prison labor and one of the period of imprisonment with prison labor shall be executed at the stage of execution of the sentence. Thus, the court below's decision on this point shall not be made clearly. We are without merit.

(3) We examine the grounds of appeal No. 2 after the defense counsel's illness.

In light of Article 198 of the Act and Article 198 of the Act and Article 198 of the Customs Act, which is written as the basis provision for collection in the application of the law of the court below, it is obvious that it is a clerical error under Article 198 of the Customs Act, since it is obvious that it is a clerical error under Article 198 of the Customs Act, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the law as to collection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)