[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(알선수재)][하집1999-2, 847]
In a case where a criminal case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the competent court, whether it can be transferred to the competent court (negative)
In a case where a criminal case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the competent court, the Criminal Procedure Act does not have the same provision as Article 31(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, according to Article 8(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, "where the court recognizes that all or part of a lawsuit does not fall under its jurisdiction, the court shall, by decision, transfer it to the competent court." However, the above provision is under the premise that the defendant has jurisdiction over the defendant as "where the defendant does not fall under its jurisdiction," and its purport is under the premise that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant, but the court has jurisdiction over the defendant, but it only provides that the defendant may transfer it to the same court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant for the convenience of the trial and the benefit of the defendant, and it is interpreted that the defendant should not
Articles 4 and 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant)
Defendant
Law Firm Barun Law Office, Attorney Kang Jon-hun
This case shall not fall under the jurisdiction of a party member.
1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that "the defendant was in office as the Chief Secretary of the Office of Finance and Economy around 1994, and the Chief Director of the Office of Government Administration around 1995, who was elected as the 15th National Assembly member around 1996 and is currently in office as a member of the Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee of the National Assembly, and the defendant's personal office, and the chairman of the Housing Construction Association of the Seoul City from September 1995 to the end of the same year purchased part of the money and valuables from the 9th National Assembly to the 9th National Assembly member of the Seoul City Housing Construction Association for the purpose of improving the system, such as tax benefits, etc. for revitalizing the housing rental business requested by the non-indicted corporation's representative director at the time of the Seoul City Housing Construction Association, and arranged for the plan to revitalize the housing business from the 19th National Assembly member to the 9th National Assembly member of the Seoul City Housing Association by introducing the relevant public official to the 9th National Housing Association member of the Housing Construction Act.
2. However, prior to the examination of the merits of this case, the defendant and his defense counsel filed a judgment of lack of jurisdiction by asserting that they had no jurisdiction over the above facts charged against the defendant. Thus, the territorial jurisdiction over the case in question is the place of crime, the address, the domicile or the present location of the defendant (Article 4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the existence of jurisdiction should be determined on the basis of the facts charged. The crime of this case is the office and the office of the defendant in Mapo-gu, Seoul, and the office and office of the defendant in Seoul, the private office, and the restaurant in Seoul. The defendant's domicile is the office and office of the party members in Mapo-gu, Seoul, and the defendant's domicile and the present location are also the personal office of the defendant in Seoul, and the defendant's personal office and office are not the jurisdiction of the party members in Seoul, and the defendant's domicile and the address of the defendant or present location are not the jurisdiction of the party members in Seocho-gu, Seoul, and it is not the jurisdiction of the new party members in Seoul.
On the other hand, if the case is not under its jurisdiction, it shall be transferred to the Dong level court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant, and Article 31 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if the court recognizes that all or part of the lawsuit is not under its jurisdiction, it shall be transferred to the competent court by decision." However, according to Article 8 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, "the court may transfer the case to the Dong level court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant if there are special circumstances where the defendant is not under its jurisdiction," but the above provision is under the premise that "where the defendant is not under its jurisdiction, it shall be transferred to the Dong level court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant," and its purport is only under the premise that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant, but it shall not be interpreted that if the defendant is not under its jurisdiction, it can be transferred to the Dong level court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant for the convenience of hearing and the interest of the defendant, and it shall not be necessary to transfer the case to the defendant in case without jurisdiction (Supreme Court Decision 8225Do2725, October 10, 197).
Therefore, the crime of this case and the residence of the defendant are Seoul et al. not within the jurisdiction of party members, but not within the jurisdiction of party members. In addition, it is not a case that can be transferred to the competent court of the present location of the defendant.
3. If so, this case where the defendant applied for the jurisdiction of territorial jurisdiction before the statement of the prosecuted case is made by the defendant, and the party member is not under the jurisdiction of the party member, so it is decided as per Disposition by applying the main sentence of Article 319 and Article 320 of the Criminal Procedure
Judges Thai-hwan