Whether an appellate court which has partially admitted the defendant's appeal on the sole ground of unfair sentencing can file an appeal on the grounds of incomplete hearing or misconception of facts against the rules of evidence (negative)

The appellate court's decision that partially accepted the defendant's appeal on the sole ground of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as the defendant's ground of appeal for incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence

Articles 383 and 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-young et al. and one other

Chuncheon District Court Decision 90No326 delivered on September 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The 13th day of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the counsel.

Since it is evident that the defendant had failed to submit only an unreasonable sentencing decision as a ground for appeal against the judgment of the first instance, the defendant cannot be considered as the ground for appeal against the judgment of the court below which partially accepted the decision of the court below, such as the submission of arguments, or misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1561, Dec. 8, 1987). Furthermore, even after examining the records, the court below's decision is justified in the measures maintained by the judgment of the first instance that sold and disposed of incombustible coal provisionally seized in accordance with its adopted evidence, and by removing two copies of the notice of the attachment indication in its decision, thereby impairing the utility of the provisional seizure. Therefore, the above argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal, to include 13 days of detention in the principal sentence after the appeal.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)