[1] The time when the crime under Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established

[2] Whether the court may include the number of days under detention prior to the rendering of a judgment in the punishment of an offense against other criminal facts for which a warrant of detention is not issued (affirmative)

[1] The crime of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established at the time when the issuer of a check predicts the occurrence of the result that the check will not be paid on the date for presentation due to the shortage of deposits, and it is not established when the check is issued on the date for presentation.

[2] In a case where several facts charged are prosecuted, a detention warrant was issued on the sole basis of some of the facts charged, and the court, after conducting a combined trial, divided the crimes concerning partial criminal facts for which a detention warrant was issued to the defendant and the remaining criminal facts and sentenced two punishments, the effect of detention due to partial criminal facts is considered to affect the remaining criminal facts concerning the defendant's new illness, and the issue of whether the detention period should be included in the punishment for a certain crime is a matter belonging to the court's discretion. Thus, the court may include the number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the punishment for other criminal facts for which the detention warrant was not issued.

[1] Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act / [2] Article 57 (1) of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Do3239 decided Apr. 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 930), Supreme Court Decision 85Do1862 decided Nov. 24, 1985 (Gong1986, 359) 85Do2640 decided Mar. 11, 1986 (Gong1986, 659), Supreme Court Decision 89Do1480 decided Mar. 27, 1990 (Gong190, 1016), Supreme Court Decision 95Do2114 decided Mar. 8, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1309) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 86Do18688 decided Dec. 9, 1986 (Gong1987, 1988; 1987Do188686, Jul. 18, 1986)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jong-woo

Seoul High Court Decision 95No2952 delivered on February 27, 1996

The appeal shall be dismissed. The 25 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the punishment for the second crime in the judgment of the court of first instance.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

The crime of Article 2 (2) of the Illegal Check Control Act is established at the time when the issuer of a check predicts that the check will not be paid on the date for presentation due to the shortage of deposits and the check is issued (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do1862, Nov. 24, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Do2640, Mar. 11, 1986). It is not established when the check is not paid on the date for presentation of payment. Under this view, there is no error in the application of the law to the lower court’s judgment on this point. The ground of appeal on this point is not acceptable.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

In a case where the defendant who was prosecuted for several facts charged was detained on the sole basis of a part of the facts charged, and the court divided the punishment for a part of the facts charged for which detention warrant has been issued to the defendant and imposed two punishments for the remaining facts charged at the completion of combined trial, the effect of detention due to a part of the facts charged extends to the remaining facts charged for the defendant's new illness, and the issue of whether the number of detention days should be included in the punishment for a certain crime is a matter belonging to the court's discretion. Thus, the court may include the number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the punishment for other facts charged for which the detention warrant has not been issued (Supreme Court Decision 86Do1875 delivered on December 9, 1986).

Therefore, the court below is just in making a disposition that included 210 days in the sentence for the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance to the defendant, and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the punishment for the second crime as decided by the court of first instance, which is maintained by the court below, is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)