[국가보안법위반·살인][집11(2)형,001]
Whether a decision to renew the period of detention is an ex officio investigation of the appeal, and the reason for appeal that no decision to renew detention is made.
Whether or not there exists a decision to renew detention in the court of the first instance can not be interpreted as the matter to be examined ex officio in the appellate court, and only the reason that there is no decision to renew detention does not constitute an error in the litigation of the court of the first instance or other appellate court. Therefore, the above reason alone cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal against the original judgment.
Articles 92 and 361-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Appellant 1 et al.
Kim Young-si
Gwangju High Court Decision 62No350 delivered on March 16, 1963
The appeal is dismissed.
The 70-day period of detention after the filing of an appeal shall be included in the principal sentence, respectively.
The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal and the defendant's grounds of appeal are examined. (1) According to the first ground of appeal by the defense counsel, the defendant's assertion that there was no decision to renew detention in the court of first instance at the court of first instance at the court of first instance at the court of appeal can not be interpreted as an ex officio investigation at the court of first instance, and only the ground that there was no decision to renew detention does not constitute an error in the litigation at the court of first instance or a ground of appeal other than the indictment, and only the fact that there was no decision to renew detention does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal against the original judgment.
(2) As to the counsel's ground of appeal No. 2, the Supreme Court's decision on the punishment in the original judgment is excessive, or the decision on the punishment in the original judgment is sentenced to the punishment in the first instance court for five years, and the decision on the imposition of unfair sentencing on the defendant life-sustaining defendant who maintained the judgment in the first instance court cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal, and the decision on the imposition of unfair sentencing on the defendant life-sustaining defendant who maintained the judgment in the first instance court cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal in the first instance court, and the decision on the punishment in the first instance court for 12 years is sentenced to the defendant's right
(3) The evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, based on the records, can not be found in violation of the rules of evidence in this case, and even if the court below did not employ the application for evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be said that there was an error of law, and according to the records, the judge who participated in the trial at the court of first instance and the judge who participated in the original judgment are the same.
However, although some of the judges who participated in sentencing the original judgment can be recognized, there may be no errors in the original judgment, and even after examining records, it cannot be said that there is a significant reason to recognize that the amount of punishment is extremely unfair even after examining the records, so the grounds for appeal in this case cannot be said to be either unreasonable or groundless.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the highest leapbal leapbal leaps