The extent of the appellate court’s decision on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing

With respect to the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the defendant and his defense counsel, the court below's decision that "the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is appropriate in consideration of the sentencing conditions shown in the case" is sufficient at the time of judging the grounds for appeal, and such a statement is too abstract, so it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law of lack of reason or violation of the constitutional provision that guarantees the right to trial.

Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 86No1742 delivered on August 26, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

1. In determining the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the defendant and his defense counsel, the court below's decision that "where considering the sentencing conditions shown in this case, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is appropriate" is sufficient as the judgment opinion on the grounds for appeal, and it is too abstract, and thus, it cannot be adopted to discuss whether the court below's decision was in violation of the constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to a trial, which guarantees the illegality of the grounds for appeal without clarifying the grounds for appeal.

2. Examining the evidence in comparison with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts against the defendant of the judgment of the court of first instance, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or lack of examination as alleged in the grounds for the recognition process, and the grounds for an unfair sentencing or a violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence or a lack of examination as alleged in the grounds for appeal cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where

3. Even if the defendant has reached the final appeal and became an adult, it is not reasonable to reverse the original judgment which maintained the irregular term of punishment.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The part of the detention days after the appeal is to be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)