Effect of the protocol of trial in which the signature of the presiding judge is substituted by the participation letter;

A. According to the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be said that there was no signature or seal of the presiding judge, free of charge, and the judge without signing and sealing it, or that there was no judgment of the court of first instance itself.

(b) Trial records with signatures and seals of the presiding judge, certified judicial scrivener and court clerks who have participated shall not be deemed as a protocol of invalidation, even though the court clerk who has participated in the trial was the substitute for all such signatures.

Article 87 of the Military Court Act

Defendant

The Second Military Court Decision 66 High Military Court Decision 750 decided December 30, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination of the grounds for appeal by a state appointed defense counsel and the defendant's second ground for appeal

The argument that the sentencing of the original judgment is excessive is not a reason provided in Article 432 of the Military Court Act, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the Defendant

The argument that there is an error of mistake in the original judgment can not be a legitimate ground for appeal in accordance with Article 432 of the Appellate Conference Act. In addition, according to the original judgment, it is clear that Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act has been applied to the defendant's judgment, and the crime of violation in Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act is established by the public official's acceptance of bribe in relation to his duties, and it does not constitute a crime of violation in Article 129(1) of the Criminal Act, such as the argument, and it does not constitute an improper solicitation

In addition, according to the protocol of trial of the court of first instance, the signature and seal of the presiding judge, certified judicial scrivener, and clerk participating in the protocol of trial is affixed. The signature and seal of the presiding judge, certified judicial scrivener, and clerk participating in the court of first instance can be seen as being replaced by one person, and the preparation of the protocol is not illegal. However, signing and sealing of the protocol by the presiding judge and certified judicial scrivener is not a preparing person of the protocol, but a copy of the protocol is proved to be correct. Thus, it is clear that the protocol is not an invalid protocol per year, and according to the records of the first instance court, it cannot be said that there was no sentence of the court of first instance. According to the protocol of second instance, according to the judgment of the court of first instance, it cannot be said that there was no signature and seal of the presiding judge, certified judicial scrivener, and judge, and that there was no signature and seal of the court of first instance, so the judgment of first instance cannot be reversed and the judgment of first instance cannot be reversed.

In addition, according to the written confirmation of the convening authority on the judgment of the first instance, the error that the competent authority does not place the seal on the part partially deleted, but it cannot be said that it is the invalid confirmation. Therefore, all arguments are groundless.

3. The appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu