A. The meaning of Article 18(1)2 of the Criminal Procedure Act “when there is a concern about an unfair trial”

B. Whether it can be deemed that the case of “01” can be seen solely on the ground that the application for examination of evidence is not adopted, the revocation of the ruling of evidence already made, or the fact that the examination of the witness of the defendant was prevented

A. Article 18 (1) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the cause of challenge refers to the time when there is a subjective circumstance that the parties might be unfair judgment, not to refer to the time when there is a subjective reason that the parties might be unfair judgment, but to the time when there is an objective reason that it would be unfair judgment in relation to the case with the judge by the ordinary person's judgment.

B. Even if the full bench did not adopt a party's application for examination of evidence or revoked a ruling of evidence already made, such reasons alone cannot be deemed as an objective circumstance where it is difficult to expect the impartiality of the trial. In addition, if there is no evidence to deem that the presiding judge violated the essential part of the defendant's right to examine the witness under Article 299 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the presiding judge's restraint of examination of the witness by the defendant does not constitute an objective circumstance where it is reasonable to acknowledge that it would be unfair in relation to the case with the judge.

(a) Article 18(1)2(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 87Du10 Dated October 21, 1987 (Gong1987,1802) dated November 2, 1990 (Gong1991,69) dated December 7, 1991 (Gong1992,548) 91Mo79 Dated December 7, 1991

Re-appellant

Seoul Criminal Court Order 95Hu339 Dated February 13, 1995

The reappeal is dismissed.

Article 18 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the reason for challenge refers not to the time when there is any subjective circumstance that the parties might be unfair judgment, but to the time when there is objective circumstance that it is reasonable to recognize that it would be unfair judgment in relation to a case with judge by ordinary person (see Supreme Court Order 87Du10, Oct. 21, 1987; Decision 90Mo44, Nov. 2, 1990; Decision 90Mo94, Nov. 2, 1990; Decision 299 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court below's examination cannot be deemed reasonable in cases where it is difficult to expect the fairness of the trial only with such reason, and it does not constitute an infringement of the defendant's fundamental right to a witness in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)