Whether a judge of a district court is dissatisfied with a judgment on the issuance of a seizure warrant against a quasi-appeal or appeal by a judge of the district court (negative)

Article 416 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for quasi-appeal against a judgment rendered by a presiding judge or a commissioned judge. Here, "a presiding judge or a commissioned judge" refers to only the presiding judge or a commissioned judge of the court of lawsuit as a member of the court of lawsuit. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the judge of the district court, who is an independent judicial institution issuing a seizure warrant, etc. upon request by an investigation agency, falls under this case. Thus, in regard to the judgment on the issuance of a seizure warrant by a judge of the district court, the quasi-appeal as provided in the above provision cannot be raised, and further, the appeal as provided in Articles 402 and 403 of the same Act refers to the judgment on the issuance of a seizure warrant, which is the object of the court's decision, and thus, the

Articles 402, 403, and 416 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 57Mo9 dated March 14, 1958 (Gong1997Ha, 2218) 86Mo25 dated July 12, 1986 (Gong1986, 1071) Supreme Court Order 97Mo1 dated June 16, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2218)

Re-appellant

Attorneys Cho Young-hee and 3 others

Seoul District Court Order 96No10 dated May 8, 1997

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 416 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for quasi-appeal against a judgment rendered by a presiding judge or a commissioned judge. Here, "a presiding judge or a commissioned judge" refers only to the presiding judge or a commissioned judge of the court of lawsuit as a member of the investigation agency. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the judge of the district court, who is an independent judicial agency issuing a seizure warrant, etc. upon request by an investigation agency, constitutes a quasi-appeal as provided for in the above provision. Furthermore, the appeal as provided for in Articles 402 and 403 of the same Act is subject to the court's decision, and the appeal as provided for in the above Articles 402 and 403 of the same Act is subject to the court's decision, so it shall be deemed that a judge of the district court, which is not a judge of the court's decision, is not subject to appeal against the judgment of the ordering court of seizure warrant (see Supreme Court Order 86Mo25, Jul. 12, 1986; Supreme Court Order 97Mo16, Jun.

However, in a case where a seizure disposition by an investigative agency is taken under the above seizure warrant, it may be appealed in the manner of quasi-appeal as stipulated in Article 417 of the same Act.

In the above purport, the decision of the court below that dismissed the quasi-appeal of this case is just, and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)