Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the meaning of the court which pronounced the decision

The competent court of the objection against the execution of the judgment as stipulated in Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act is the court which sentenced the judgment, and the court which sentenced the judgment here refers to the court which sentenced the defendant to the punishment, and the court which dismissed the appeal against the judgment which sentenced the punishment.

Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 4294Ma45 Decided June 7, 1962 (No. 10-3, 839 Decided January 9, 1969) Supreme Court Order 69Hu65 Decided July 20, 1982 (Gong1982, 839)

Applicant

The objection shall be dismissed.

We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the objection of this case.

Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the court which has pronounced a judgment shall be the court which has pronounced the judgment, and the court which has pronounced the judgment here refers to the court which has pronounced the sentence against the defendant, and the court which has dismissed the appeal against the judgment which has sentenced this punishment is not the court but the party member is the party member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 4294 type and type of paragraph45, Jun. 7, 1962; Order 69 seconds65, Jan. 9, 1969; Order 82125, Jul. 20, 1982).

According to the records, the defendant is an objection under Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which was sentenced to the imprisonment of one year and six months in the Seoul District Court's appellate division, the second instance court's violation of the National Security Act, is reversed. The defendant appealed one year and one year to the party members, but it is obvious that the dismissal of appeal was sentenced on March 12, 1996. Thus, the party members do not fall under the court that sentenced the judgment under Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act and do not fall under the competent court of this case.

Ultimately, since the objection of this case is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)