2. Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the territorial jurisdiction is defined as the place of crime, the address, residence or present location of the defendant.

According to the facts charged, the crime location of this case and present location at the time of prosecution are Incheon, and the address and residence of the defendant at the time of prosecution are Daegu achieved Group C.

The above crime place, the address, the place of residence, and the present location of the defendant are not under the jurisdiction of this court, and the records are not examined, but there is no evidence that the crime place, the address, the place of residence, and the present location are within the jurisdiction of this court.

However, Article 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "where a defendant's case does not fall under the jurisdiction of the court, a declaration of violation of jurisdiction shall be made by judgment, and Article 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court may transfer the case to the Dong level court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant for the convenience of hearing and the benefit of the defendant if the defendant does not fall under the jurisdiction of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Do225, Oct. 10, 1978). Thus, the court of this case without jurisdiction against the defendant cannot transfer the case to the Dong level court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant.

3. In conclusion, this case constitutes a case that does not fall under the jurisdiction of this court, and since the defendant applied for a violation of jurisdiction before the statement about the defendant was made, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 319 and 320 of the Criminal Procedure Act.