Whether a public prosecution offense case after remand has been changed less than that prior to remand, should be sentenced to minor punishment than that prior to remand.

There is no legal ground that a public prosecution case after remand should be sentenced more than a sentence before remand even if it has been changed to a minor crime than a sentence before remand.

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Han Han-han

Seoul High Court Decision 85No1655 delivered on November 7, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The thirty days, from among those pending trial after the appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The gist of the grounds of appeal on the Constitution of the Republic of Korea with respect to the defendant and his defense counsel is that the court below erred in applying the law, and the amount of punishment is too unreasonable after the remand, even though the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery among the facts charged in this case was changed due to the prosecutor's modification of an indictment after the remanding of the case, even though the statutory penalty was a minor robbery.

However, as in the theory of lawsuit, even though the facts charged were changed to a minor crime than the facts charged prior to remand, there is no legal ground that the sentence should be sentenced more than the sentence prior to remand, and the amount of the sentence is too heavy in the case of this case for which seven years have been sentenced after remand in the original court after remand, which cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal, in light of the provisions of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, there is no reason

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)