Where only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance court which pronounced guilty of a prosecuted case and dismissed the part of the request for custody, whether the appellate court continues to apply for custody

A. In a case where only the defendant appeals against the judgment of the court of first instance which pronounced guilty of a prosecuted case and dismissed the part of the claim for care and custody, the defendant does not have any interest in the appeal against the claim for care and custody. In such a case, there is no room to apply Article 20(8) of the Social Protection Act, which is deemed to have the appeal even in the case of the case of the defendant's appeal. Thus, the

B. The lower court’s judgment on the part of the instant case’s protective custody claim with no pending lawsuit is reversed and it is illegal that the Defendant is faced with seven years of protective custody. As such, the appellate court’s judgment on this part of the lower judgment is reversed.

A. Article 20(8) of the Social Protection Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do2476, 82Do520 Delivered on December 14, 1982

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Attorney Kim Yong-han

Seoul High Court Decision 82No1328,82No356 delivered on October 28, 1982

The part of the judgment below pertaining to custody cases shall be reversed.

The appeal against the accused case shall be dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

In light of the records, we affirm the criminal facts recognized by the judgment of the court below, and we cannot find out that there was no fault in the trial process or evidence preparation, and the sentence imposed is too serious. Thus, the theory of the lawsuit is groundless.

2. Ex officio determination

According to the records, the judgment of the court of first instance can be written that only the defendant filed an appeal for objection against the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment and dismissed his request for custody. Thus, the court of first instance shall not continue to exist. This is because although the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the imprisonment for life, but the judgment dismissed the request for custody, the defendant has no interest in filing an appeal against this case, and there is no room to apply Article 20 (8) of the Social Protection Act which is deemed to apply to the case where the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the imprisonment for life.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed with respect to custody claim, and the defendant was placed in seven years of protective custody. Thus, the judgment of the court below is unlawful as the judgment of the case where the lawsuit is not pending. Thus, it is sufficient to reverse the judgment of the court below.

For the above reasons, the judgment of the court below regarding custody application is reversed, and the appeal against the defendant is dismissed, and one copy of the number of detention days after the appeal is delivered with the assent of all the participating judges who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)