The case reversing the judgment of the court below that there was an error of judgment in fact even though the statute of limitations expired 15 years after the date of prosecution

The case reversing the judgment of the court below that there was an error of judgment in fact even though the statute of limitations expired 15 years after the date of prosecution

Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Choi Min-soo

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 86No3964 delivered on September 9, 1986

All the original judgment and the first instance judgment shall be reversed.

Acquittal of the Defendant

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime against which a public prosecution has been instituted shall be deemed to have been completed 15 years after the date the public prosecution was instituted without the final judgment (Article 249(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the records, according to the main sentence of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the public prosecution against the defendant was instituted on November 11, 1970 and the judgment of the first instance was rendered without the defendant's statement, and the defendant's request for recovery of right of appeal was accepted, but the above judgment was subsequently accepted, and the judgment of the court below was rendered on September 9, 1986. Thus, it is obvious that 15 years have already passed since the date of the above public prosecution was made at the time of the decision of the court below, and therefore, each of the crimes against which a public prosecution of this case has already been instituted is deemed to have been completed, and thus, the judgment of acquittal was unlawful despite the fact that the court below and the defendant was finally tried on the substance.

Therefore, it is reasonable to reverse all the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance which rendered a conviction against the defendant without the necessity to determine the remaining grounds of appeal. Since it is sufficient to render a judgment by the records of the instant case, it is decided directly by a member of the party under

The facts charged of this case against the defendant are identical to those of which the judgment of the court of first instance found guilty, and the facts charged of this case, as shown in the above reasoning, have expired, and thus, the statute of limitations for the prosecution of this case has expired. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)