Attorney Gangnam-hho et al.

1. As to the assertion that the court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the apparentness of evidence under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act

In light of the records, the court below's dismissal of the request for retrial of this case does not constitute a new case where there is no violation of the Constitution, laws, orders, or rules that affected the judgment on dismissal of the request for retrial of this case on the ground that the materials, which the applicant for retrial was able to maintain the decision for retrial as they were able to be found as they were.

2. The court which received the request for a retrial regarding the allegation that there was an error of rejection of the request for the delivery of documents by the requester but failed to notify it, may ex officio investigate the reasons for the request for retrial pursuant to Article 431 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the party concerned does not have the right to request a factual investigation.

Therefore, even if the parties have filed a request for fact-finding as to the reasons for the request for a retrial, it is only the meaning of demanding the court to make ex officio requests, so the court does not need to hold a trial as to this request, and even if the court rejected this request, it is not necessary to notify

According to the above legal principles, even if the court below rejected the request for the delivery of documents as part of the fact-finding as to the grounds for the request for retrial and did not notify the result, it did not err as otherwise alleged in the grounds for reappeal.

3. Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

March 12, 2021

Justices Min Min-young

The chief Justice Justice shall mobilized

Justices Noh Tae-ok