(a) Appropriateness of an excessive inclusion in the number of detention days;

B. Implosion of the appellate court and an implied decision on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing

(a) In the calculation of the number of days under detention prior to the imposition of judgment, the calculation of the number of days that cannot be included in excess of the limit is an error of error that may affect the judgment; and

B. Even if the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal did not express an explicit expression on the grounds for appeal, if the court below imposed a more severe penalty than that imposed by the court of first instance on the reversal of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be deemed that the prosecutor’s assertion on the grounds of unfair sentencing is included implicitly in the judgment

A. Article 57 of the Criminal Act, Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 361 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 4292 Form782 Delivered on March 9, 1960

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 83No382 delivered on June 10, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The forty days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The inclusion of the number of days of detention prior to the imposition of sentence in excess of the limit is an error of error that may affect the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 4292Ma782 delivered on March 9, 1960). Thus, according to the records, the court of first instance decided that 100 days of the number of days of detention prior to the imposition of sentence was included in the above sentence, despite the fact that the number of days of detention prior to the imposition of sentence was 95 days by the date of the imposition of sentence in the first instance, which is 10 months prior to the imposition of sentence. This is an error in the law that includes the number of days of detention prior to the imposition of sentence in the same manner as there is no actual number of days of detention, and it is clear that this affected the judgment (the prosecutor only appealed the judgment of the first instance court), and the judgment of the court of first instance reversed ex officio is just, and the case of the party member

2. According to the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor's opinion that there is no explicit expression on the grounds for appeal is identical to the theory of lawsuit that there is no explicit expression on the grounds for appeal, but considering that the court below is sentenced to two years of imprisonment with labor more than ten months sentenced by the court of first instance while destroying and publishing the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be deemed that the prosecutor's argument on the grounds of unfair sentencing is not implicitly included in the judgment of the court below,

Therefore, without merit, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days of confinement in the case is added to the number of days of confinement in the court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)