Whether an incomplete hearing on the circumstances may be the ground for appeal in a case which cannot be considered as the grounds for appeal (negative)

With respect to a judgment on which a sentence of imprisonment for a maximum term of three years or a short term of two years and six months has been imposed, it shall not be deemed as the grounds of appeal on the grounds that the amount of punishment is unreasonable, nor shall it be deemed as the grounds of appeal on the grounds that the fact-finding court did not properly examine the circumstances attached to

Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 51 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 89Do2023 Decided December 8, 1989

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Byung-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 89No2581 delivered on November 2, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

35 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The defendant and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined together.

As in this case, with respect to a judgment on which a sentence of imprisonment for a maximum term of three years and a sentence of two years and six months was imposed, it cannot be viewed as the grounds for appeal on the grounds that the amount of punishment is unreasonable, as well as that of a fact-finding court’s failure to properly examine the circumstances under which the conditions for sentencing was imposed, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the grounds for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do2023, Dec. 8, 198

Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)