Method of appeal against the ruling of the High Military Law Meeting

In principle, an appeal shall not be filed against the ruling under each subparagraph of Article 297 (1) of the Military Court Meeting Act in accordance with paragraph (3) of the same Article: Provided, That an immediate appeal may be filed with the Supreme Court in accordance with Article 454 of the same Act, only when it is filed on the ground of a violation of the Constitution, Acts, orders or rules affecting the judgment.

§ 297, § 454, 297, 454

Supreme Court Order 80Mo18 Dated September 2, 1980 80Mo18 Dated May 9, 1986 (Dong) 86Mo11 Dated May 26, 1986 (Dong)

Re-appellant

Maritime Court Order 85Mo12 dated October 31, 1985

The reappeal is dismissed.

As to the ruling under each subparagraph of Article 297 (1) of the Dog-gun Military Court Act, a complaint may not be filed in principle pursuant to Article 297 (3) of the same Act. However, only when it is filed on the ground of violation of the Constitution, Acts, subordinate statutes, orders or rules that affected the trial, a complaint may be filed to the Supreme Court under Article 454 of the same Act. Meanwhile, according to Article 445 of the same Act, the period for filing an immediate complaint shall be three days. According to the records, the re-appeal shall be deemed to have been served on October 23, 1985 on the date when the re-appellant was served with the original copy of the ruling of this case by the Maritime Court, the date when the original copy of the ruling of this case was received by the Maritime Court, and it is obvious that it is the 29th day of that month (the period for filing an immediate complaint). Accordingly, the re-appeal shall be dismissed pursuant to Articles 452 and 447 of the same Act, and the same purport shall be dismissed.

Therefore, the reappeal of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)