Cases where the judgment of the court below which was not included in the detention days before the pronouncement of judgment was reversed and the part of the number of days pending trial is included in the original sentence.

The court below's decision that did not include all or part of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below in the original sentence under Article 57 of the Criminal Act because the defendant has been detained prior to the institution of public prosecution, but did not include the detention days prior to the institution of public prosecution.

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Yoon Il-young et al.

Gwangju High Court Decision 94No107 delivered on April 29, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed. Appeal is dismissed.

The number of days of detention in the original judgment prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in imprisonment.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal and the first ground of appeal by defense counsel

If the evidence of the first instance court affirmed by the court below is examined by comparing it with records, it can sufficiently recognize the defendant's criminal facts in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Customs Duties) of this case, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law of misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence without properly conducting the deliberation

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2 by a public defender

As in this case, with respect to a judgment on which two years and six months of imprisonment and fine of KRW 100,000 have been imposed, as in the same case, the amount of punishment cannot be considered as the grounds for appeal on the grounds that the amount of punishment is unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2 by a private defense counsel

According to the records, since it is clear that the defendant has been detained prior to the prosecution of this case, the court below should include all or part of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below in the original sentence pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Act, but the court below did not include the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below in the original sentence. Thus, the court below erred in the application of law, and it is clear that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the judgment of the court below is reversed.

4. Therefore, under Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a decision is rendered directly with respect to this case.

If the evidence admitted by the court of first instance is examined by comparing the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel with the records, the facts constituting the crime of this case can be fully recognized. The facts constituting the crime of this case cannot be deemed to have been committed in violation of the rules of evidence without properly conducting the deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit in the court of first instance, and the facts against the rules of evidence cannot be deemed to have been erroneous. The sentencing of the court of first instance is deemed to be unfair even

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who are to include 110 days out of the number of days of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment below in the imprisonment.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)