Delay of the promulgation of law and the validity of the date of enforcement of law;

According to Article 9 of the Addenda to the Criminal Procedure Act, the enforcement date of the Act was stipulated as 30 May 1954 by clerk, but the Act was promulgated on September 23, 1954 by clerk, so the provision on the enforcement date is invalid due to the delay in the promulgation of law and it is reasonable to interpret the enforcement date as 14 October 1954 by clerk for whom 20 days have passed after the promulgation of law in accordance with the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the Constitution.

Article 40 of the Constitution, Article 1 of the Addenda to the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 9 of the Addenda.

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court and Daegu High Court of the second instance;

The final appeal is dismissed.

The chief public prosecutor of the Daegu High Public Prosecutor's Office recognized the whole facts charged by the court below on October 1954, and the defendant et al. concluded that there are no previous convictions, and that there are considerable circumstances to consider the improvement in this case's crime, and that the defendant would be sentenced to imprisonment for six months and four months from the date of the final judgment: Provided, That the defendant cannot be sentenced to an unreasonable judgment because of the following reasons: (a) there is no room for not being able to escape from the execution of punishment for each of the crimes; and (b) there is no room to acknowledge that there is no need to take into account the fact that there is no further need to take into account the motive of the crime, such as an injury caused to the defendant's body, and (c) there is no further need to take into account the motive of the crime, such as an injury caused by the death of the victim, even though it was an infringement of the body of the victim, and that there is no further need to take into account the motive of the crime, such as the injury caused by the second public prosecutor's.

The gist of the grounds of appeal in this case is that the original judgment is an unreasonable sentencing. However, the issue of sentencing cannot be the grounds of appeal on the grounds that this case will be subject to the previous Criminal Procedure Act because it is an indictment case before the enforcement of the new Criminal Procedure Act. In this regard, Article 40 (5) of the Constitution provides that "no law shall take effect 20 days after the date of its promulgation unless there are special provisions," and Article 40 (5) of the Constitution provides that "no law shall take effect after the lapse of 20 days after the date of its promulgation, unless there is a special provision," while the law in this case comes into force at the same time as the special reason shall be understood as falling under the exception of the special reason, which provides that the enforcement date of Article 9 of the Addenda to the new Criminal Procedure Act shall be 20 days after the enforcement of the new Criminal Procedure Act, which is the first day of May 30, 1954, but the enforcement date of Article 40 (9) of the Addenda to the new Criminal Procedure Act shall not be known or expected to be enforced on September 23, 19, 19.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to interpret the provision on the date of enforcement as stipulated in Article 9 of the Rule of the War Article 9 as the date of promulgation of the same Act and the date of enforcement of this Act under Article 40 (5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea shall be October 14, 1954, which is twenty days after the date of promulgation of this Act. Thus, according to the records, the indictment date of this case shall be applied by a clerk on October 11, 1954 pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it shall be dismissed as being a legitimate ground of appeal, such as all statements, and it is so decided as per Disposition by Article 181 subparagraph 4 (f) of the Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)