The period of statute of limitations;

Article 251 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply to cases where punishment is aggravated or mitigated by law other than the Criminal Act.

Article 251 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 5 of the Stows Control Act

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Prosecutor and Defendant 1

Attorney Han-han (Law No. 1000,000)

Seoul High Court Decision 72No1011 delivered on November 20, 1972

All appeals filed by a prosecutor and Defendant 1 are dismissed.

(1) As to the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal:

The main point of the argument is that all the judgment of not guilty, which rendered a verdict of not guilty, against the rules of evidence, has committed a mistake in violation of the rules of evidence, but the decision of the original judgment is acceptable in light of its reasoning. The argument is groundless. This is without merit.

(2) Both Defendant’s grounds of appeal by state appointed defense counsel and Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal are as follows: (a) the judgment of the original court was eventually erroneous; and (b) this case’s judgment cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal; and (c) the arguments are without merit

(3) As to Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the part of innocence, was reversed, and the judgment of conviction was rendered against two crimes inside the defense counsel. Thus, the judgment of conviction contains the judgment dismissing the grounds for appeal that the defense counsel was innocent. Thus, the first issue is that there is an error of omission of judgment in theory, and the first issue is that there is a subjective perception as alleged in the debate. However, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant had such recognition at the time of the act of action with legitimate evidence, and did not have determined that such requirements were necessary, and it did not seem that the defendant violated the rules of evidence, and therefore, it is not possible to employ the second 3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it cannot be viewed that the court below did not err by misapprehending the statutory provisions of Article 251 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as it did not constitute an aggravated punishment against the defendant and the defendant, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the above punishment should be aggravated.

For the above reasons, each appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Hong Man Pung-chul (Presiding Justice)