[직무유기][공1979.6.15.(610),11867]
Whether it is involved in the original trial prior to the remand and is excluded as a judge of the original trial after the remand.
Article 48 of the Appellate Court Act and Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act cannot be deemed to be a violation of Article 48 of the Appellate Court Act.
Article 48 of the Military Court Act, Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Do112 Decided December 6, 1968
Defendant
Attorney Kim Young-young (Korean)
The High Military Court Decision 78No48 delivered on September 5, 1978
The appeal is dismissed.
First, we examine the defendant's grounds for appeal.
We examine the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below and the court of first instance, and find no error in finding the facts identical to the theory of lawsuit.
The issue is groundless.
Next, we examine the defendant's defense counsel's grounds for appeal.
Even though the judge who participated in the original trial before the remand was involved in the case after the remand, it cannot be deemed to be in violation of Article 48(b) of the Military Court Act and Article 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 67Do112, Dec. 6, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 71Do1208, Dec. 28, 1971). In so doing, it cannot be said that the judicial scrivener Kim Young-sik who participated in the case before the remand was involved again in the case after the remand, and it cannot be said that it was an unlawful act.
The essay is groundless.
Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)