[1] The purport that the Act on the Procedure of Summary Trials excludes the principle of an indictment only by stipulating that the judge shall submit evidentiary documents and articles of evidence at the same time as the request for a summary judgment

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that since the case records and articles of evidence are sent to the competent court prior to the first trial date due to the request for formal trial against the summary judgment, the procedure for the claim for the summary judgment by the chief of police station which was lawfully

[1] When the Act on the Procedure for Summary Trials requests a summary judgment at the same time, requiring a judge to submit evidentiary documents and articles of evidence, it shall be deemed that the principle of an indictment only is excluded from the legislative consideration to promptly and appropriately judge a crime case where the evidence of a summary judgment is obvious and the nature of the crime is minor.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below to the same effect on the ground that in case where the defendant filed a request for formal trial due to the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act because the case records and evidence were sent to the competent court through the chief of the police station, the head of the competent district public prosecutor's office or the head of the competent branch office prior to the first public prosecutor's office before the first public trial application, and the procedure for requesting formal trial cannot be deemed unlawful, and that the procedure for requesting formal trial is not different even if the statement, etc. of the victim prepared after the request for formal trial was bound and sent in the case records

[1] Articles 3(1), 4, and 6 of the Procedure Act for Summary Trials; Articles 254(1) and 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 118(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure / [2] Article 1 subparag. 51 of the Punishment Act; Article 14(3) and (4) of the Procedure for Summary Trials Act; Article 254(1), Article 327 subparag. 2, Article 455(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 118(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2008No1546 Decided July 24, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, on November 2, 2007, the chief of Daegu Suwon District Court requested a summary trial against the defendant on the ground of violation of Article 1 subparagraph 51 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and the above court sentenced 50,000 won to the defendant on the same day, and the defendant requested a formal trial on November 6, 2007. The above court sent the records of this case to the chief of Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office on January 18, 2008. The chief of Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office sent the records of this case to the chief of the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office on January 22, 2008. The first public prosecutor sent the records of this case to the first public prosecutor's office on January 22, 2008. The first public prosecutor's office and the first public prosecutor's court on May 22, 2008 were sentenced to a fine of 50,000 won as a crime of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

If the facts are the same, the case records were sent to the first instance court according to the defendant's request for formal trial in this case where the summary judgment was requested, and no other data can be found to prove that the defendant was charged with double prosecution.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the Act on the Procedure for Summary Trials, a summary judgment shall be requested by the chief of the competent police station or the chief of the competent maritime police station (hereinafter referred to as the “chief of the competent maritime police station”) (Article 3(1)), and the chief of the competent police station shall submit documents or articles of evidence necessary for the summary judgment at the same time along with the request for the summary judgment (Article 4). In addition, when a request for a summary judgment is made, the judge shall immediately render a judgment except where the case cannot be tried or the case is inappropriate to be tried under the summary judgment, and the judge is determined to dismiss the request for the summary judgment by decision (Article 6 of the same Act). In addition, the submission of evidentiary documents and articles of evidence by the Act on the Procedure for the Summary Trials at the same time as the request for the summary judgment is made by the judge shall be deemed to have been excluded from the principle of an indictment only

In addition, in case where a defendant requests a formal trial against a summary judgment, the judge shall send the case records and articles of evidence accompanied by the written request for formal trial to the chief of the competent district public prosecutor's office or branch office within seven days from the date of receipt of the written request for formal trial, and the chief of the competent public prosecutor's office or branch office shall send them without delay to the chief of the competent public prosecutor's office or branch office, and the chief of the competent public prosecutor's office or branch office shall send them without delay to the competent court (Article 14 (3) of the Procedure Act). Accordingly, when a request for formal trial against a summary judgment is legitimate, the court shall judge the formal trial (Article 14 (4) of the same Act, Article 455 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and since the case records and articles of evidence are sent to the competent court through the chief of the competent public prosecutor's office or branch office before the first public prosecutor's office or branch office upon request for formal trial pursuant to the above provisions, the procedure for requesting a summary judgment

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the law in relation to the record of the case and the delivery of evidence after the request for formal trial against the summary judgment.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The argument in this part of the grounds of appeal is not only did it be asserted in the appellate court as the grounds of appeal, but also it is not a legitimate ground of appeal because the appellate court is not the subject of the judgment ex officio. Even if ex officio examination is conducted, it is difficult to view that the first instance court dismissed the defendant's request for appointment of a public defender, or did not notify the defendant of his appointment of a public defender, thereby infringing the defendant's right to receive assistance of counsel. The court below and the first instance court proceedings do not find any violation of the statutes related to the appointment

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)