beta
Main Issues
If there is an objection to the decision to dismiss the extension of the period of detention (negative)
Summary of Decision
Since the court referred to in Articles 402 and 403 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers only to the court of lawsuit under the Criminal Procedure Act, the court cannot appeal against the decision of the judge of the district court that does not permit an extension of the period of detention under Article 205(1) of the same Act by the method of appeal as provided in Articles 402 and 403 of the same Act. Furthermore, the judge of the district court concerned is not the presiding judge or the commissioned judge of the court of lawsuit, and the judgment rendered by him is not subject to quasi-appeal as provided in Article 416 of the same Act.
[Reference Provisions]
Articles 205, 402, 403, and 416 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Order 86Mo25 dated July 12, 1986 (Gong1986, 1071) Supreme Court Order 97Mo2 dated June 16, 1997 (the same purport)
Re-appellant
Prosecutor
Suspect
Suspect
The order of the court below
Gwangju District Court Order 96Ro7 dated December 30, 1996
Text
The reappeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
The court referred to in Articles 402 and 403 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to only the court which has accepted the lawsuit under the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Order 86Mo25, Jul. 12, 1986). Thus, with respect to the ruling of a judge of the district court that does not permit the extension of the period of detention under Article 205(1) of the same Act, it shall be deemed that there is no appeal as provided in Articles 402 and 403 of the same Act.
Furthermore, since the judge of the district court is not the presiding judge or a commissioned judge as the court of lawsuit, the judgment made by him shall not be subject to quasi-appeal under Article 416 of the same Act.
Therefore, the order of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of a misapprehension of legal principles as asserted in the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)