beta
Text
The judgment below
The part on Defendant B is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal
A. According to the record as to the grounds of appeal as to the motion for challenge, Defendant C filed a motion for challenge against all judges belonging to the full bench on August 25, 201 and August 30, 201. On September 19, 2011, the lower court dismissed the motion for challenge under Article 20(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that each of the above motion for challenge is obviously aimed at delaying litigation, and the said Defendant filed a reappeal against it, but the lower court did not suspend the proceedings and rendered a judgment on September 22, 201, without suspending the proceedings.
Article 20 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that when a motion for challenge is obviously made for the purpose of delaying a lawsuit or is in violation of the provisions of Article 19, a court or a judge in receipt of such motion shall dismiss it by decision, and Article 22 of the same Act provides that where an application for challenge is filed, the proceedings shall be suspended except in the case of Article 20 (1): Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply in case of urgency. Therefore, the court below's decision that each motion for challenge is clearly made for the purpose of delaying a lawsuit and dismissed it pursuant to Article 20 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and sentenced the decision as it is is,
In addition, in a case where an application for challenge against a judge is filed, the sentence of a judgment is not included in the proceedings suspended pursuant to Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2005Mo378, Mar. 19, 2007). Therefore, the lower court did not err by violating the statutes relating to litigation procedures and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment,
All relevant arguments in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
B. As to the grounds of appeal related to the adoption of evidence, whether to adopt the evidence is at the discretion of the court and is not necessary by the court.