A. The case holding that the appellate court erred in its judgment of conviction on the part of the first instance judgment

(b) Whether the number of days pending trial prior to the consolidated examination can be included in the punishment for other crime against which the warrant of detention has not been issued after the consolidated examination

C. In a case where the judgment of the court of final appeal is reversed only on the part of other criminal facts for which a warrant of detention is not issued, whether the number of such days of detention

A. The case holding that the appellate court erred in examining and determining the part of conviction already finalized by destroying all the judgment of the court of first instance and recognizing the whole of the facts charged, even though the defendant filed an appeal only for the part of innocence, and the part of conviction became final and conclusive due to the defendant's failure to file an appeal, and the part of innocence continues to be

B. In a case where the defendant was originally detained due to the crime of aiding and abetting a perjury and became subject to a final appeal after the consolidated trial, the effect of detention of the perjury teacher after the consolidated trial reaches the remainder of the criminal facts related to the defendant's new illness, and the number of detention days can be included in the punishment for the remaining criminal facts for which the warrant of detention has not been issued. This is applicable to the case where the court takes place due to the grounds under Article 482(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act under the concept of equity.

C. In the above case, if the appeal of the defendant is dismissed with respect to the part of the perjury teacher for whom a warrant of detention was issued, and the remaining part of the crime is reversed, the number of days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the court for the benefit of the defendant.

A. Article 364(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 57 of the Criminal Act, Article 482(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 86Do1875 delivered on December 9, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No634,88No288 decided Apr. 6, 198

Of the judgment of the court below, the forgery of private documents, the same events, false entry in the original of the notarial deed, the event, defamation, damage to property, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, intimidation, and false accusation in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part concerning the forgery of private documents, events, false entry in the original notarial deed, defamation, damage to property, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and non-acceptance

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The part of the defendant's appeal against perjury is dismissed.

First of all, the defendant's grounds of appeal are examined with the exception of the second two points.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficiently acceptable to find facts such as the time of original adjudication. The court below did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as pointed out in the process of finding facts that the court below found the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court of first instance to be guilty of all the charges, and contrary to the rules of evidence. In addition, it is evident that the failure to stand up for the witness of the court below was legitimately adopted at the request of the public prosecutor on the second public trial date. Ultimately

The second ground of appeal is examined as to the second ground of appeal.

Examining the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty as to the crime of intimidation in the facts charged and sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,00,00,00, which is the judgment of the court of first instance on June 15, 1987, which sentenced the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months (excluding the provision of perjury in this case) (excluding the provision of perjury in this case), was sentenced to a fine of KRW 85Da4001, 87Ra809, which is the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the judgment of the court of first instance, and sentenced the defendant not guilty as to the remaining part among the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above part of the judgment of the court below, which affected the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant did not appeal only the part of the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the defendant's appeal against perjury teachers (including 105 days out of the number of detention days in the first instance and the second instance court) shall be dismissed. Since the part of the judgment of the court below concerning forgery of private documents, events, false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed, defamation, damage to property, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, intimidation, and non-prosecution (the crime of subparagraphs 1 through 8 at the time of original adjudication) shall not be exempted from reversal, the party members shall reverse this part and directly decide pursuant to Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the portion of innocence) except for the portion of intimidation which has already become final and conclusive shall not be maintained as it is, it shall be reversed and it shall be decided as follows.

The first head of the judgment of the court below and the facts constituting the crime for which the judgment on the defendant recognized as a member of the party are recorded in the first head and 1,2,3,4,5 and8 of the judgment of the court below, and the summary of the evidence is the same as the statement of the witness Kim Jong-sung in the trial records of the court of first instance, the statement of the prosecutor Kim Jong-sung in the trial records of the court of first instance, and the copy of the examination record of the witness who is bound in the records are recorded in the court below.

Article 231 of the Criminal Act provides that Article 231 of the Criminal Act provides that Article 234 and Article 231 of the same Act provides that Article 228 (1) provides that Article 229 and Article 228 (1) of the same Act provides that Article 307 (2) of the same Act shall apply to cases of defamation; Article 307 (2) of the same Act provides that Article 366 of the same Act provides that Article 26 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall apply to cases of damage in property; Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that Article 156 of the same Act provides that the first head of the judgment of the court below shall apply to cases of the defendant; Article 234 and Article 231 of the same Act provides that Article 228 of the same Act provides that the defendant shall apply to cases of false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed; Article 228 (1) of the same Act provides that the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for the last 30 years; Article 39 of the same Act provides that punishment for false entry in the above.

Meanwhile, according to the records of the case, the defendant was initially detained as a crime of perjury among the crimes in this case, and was consolidated into the court below which was the appellate court, and brought about the final appeal. In this case, the effect of detention due to the above-mentioned teacher's crime after the consolidated trial reaches the remainder of the crimes against the defendant's new illness, and thus, the number of days of detention can be included in the punishment for the remaining crimes against which the warrant of detention has not been issued (refer to Supreme Court Decision 86Do1875 delivered on December 9, 1986). In addition, in the case of this case, it is fair to include the remaining crimes in the punishment for the remaining crimes under Article 482 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Although the court below dismissed the defendant's final appeal, the remaining parts are reversed, and even in this case, since the court below's final appeal should be deemed to have been completed for the benefit of the defendant, the number of days of detention after the final appeal shall not be included in the final appeal.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)