It is erroneous that the number of days of pre-trial detention is not included in the year.

According to the records, since it is apparent that Defendant A was detained by the execution of a detention warrant from December 19, 1978 to January 9, 1979, the court below erred by failing to include all or part of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of judgment in the original sentence in the sentence of a suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment.

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292Ma322 delivered on October 23, 1959 (Supreme Court Decision 6283 delivered on November 23, 1959), summary of the decision, Article 57(7)1259 of the Criminal Act

B and one other

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (79Gohap26)

The judgment of the court below against the defendant A shall be reversed. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The twenty days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment against the defendant A shall be included in the above sentence against the defendant.

However, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant A is suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment. Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

170 days out of the number of days of confinement after appeal shall be included in the sentence of the lower court against Defendant B.

First of all, the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant B is that the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a year is too unreasonable since the court below sentenced the Defendant to a 1-year sentence even though the Defendant was divided after the crime of this case and voluntarily surrendered to an investigation agency. Thus, the facts that the Defendant voluntarily surrendered to an investigation agency after the crime of this case can be acknowledged, but in full view of all the circumstances such as the motive, means, result, and criminal record of the crime of this case recognized by the record, the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below is reasonable and unreasonable. In conclusion, the grounds for appeal by the Defendant on this point cannot be accepted as it is without merit.

Then, the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A is too unreasonable, and it is clear that Defendant A was detained by the execution of a detention warrant from December 19, 1978 to January 9, 1979. Thus, the court below should include all or part of the detention days before the sentence in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act in the sentence of a suspended sentence for a period of two years from a year to a year of imprisonment. However, the court below did not apply the above detention period in the judgment of the court below that the above detention period should not be included in the original sentence, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below against the above Defendant is not exempt from reversal.

Therefore, since the appeal by Defendant B is without merit, it shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 170 days out of the number of days of confinement and confinement to the defendant shall be included in the original sentence. Since the appeal by the defendant A is with merit, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6)

Criminal facts and the summary of evidence against Defendant A, recognized as a party member, are the same as that of the time of the judgment of the court below.

Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, 3 of the Criminal Act, is applicable to cases where one act constitutes several Articles 163 subparag. 1 of the Election of National Assembly Members Act, and Article 40 and Article 50(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act are applicable to cases where one act constitutes a violation of the Election of National Assembly Members Act and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. Thus, the punishment for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which is more severe than punishment under Article 40 and Article 50(2) of the Criminal Act, shall be imposed on each of the victims, and the above several crimes shall be concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the punishment for the violation of Article 38(1)2 and Article 50(2) and (3) of the same Act shall be included in the punishment of the above case within the term of imprisonment of imprisonment for the defendant.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges next full-time (Presiding Judge)