If the number of days pending trial in the appellate court, which is delivered to court, exceeds the term of punishment for the defendant's case, it shall be included in the period of protective custody (affirmative)

According to the provisions of Articles 20(6) and 16 of the Social Protection Act, a detention warrant shall be deemed a custody warrant, and the number of days of detention under a detention warrant shall be included in the period of protective custody. Thus, it is reasonable to see that the period of detention under a detention warrant or a custody warrant is the same as the period of detention under a custody warrant. Thus, if the number of days of detention under an appellate court, which is issued in court, exceeds the period of punishment for the accused case,

Article 57 of the Criminal Act, Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 16, 20(6), and 42 of the Social Protection Act

Applicant

Prosecutor

Gwangju High Court Order 84Ro5 dated July 10, 1985

The reappeal is dismissed.

The Prosecutor's grounds for reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the original decision, considering the purport of the provision of Articles 20(6), 16, and 42 of the Social Protection Act and the purport that the detention period is included in the period of protective custody for the accused, the detention warrant can be regarded as the period of protective custody. Thus, it is reasonable to see that the period of detention under the detention warrant should be included in the period of protective custody for the accused. Ultimately, on the premise that the period of detention under the detention warrant or the period of protective custody under the custody warrant should be included in the period of protective custody for the applicant, 113 days out of the remaining period of the period of protective custody for the accused case should be included in the period of protective custody for the reasons that it is reasonable to include 128 days in the period of protective custody for the above case. Thus, the judgment of the court below on the nature of detention under the detention warrant and protective custody warrant is just and reasonable as the purport of the provision of the relevant law, and it is not reasonable to see that the period of protective custody should be included in the period of protective custody.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)