The meaning of "when it is proved by a final judgment that a crime concerning duties has been committed by a judge, public prosecutor or judicial police officer who has participated in the original judgment, the judgment prior to trial, or the basic investigation based on the judgment, or a public prosecution or a prosecutor or judicial police officer who has participated in the institution of a public prosecution or an investigation based on

Articles 420 subparag. 7 and 422 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 96Mo72 decided August 29, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2953)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Noh Han-su et al.

Incheon District Court Decision 2016No988 Decided July 21, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The defendant's assertion that he was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing the crime of this case is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as the ground for appeal or not ex officio.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be

In addition, Article 420 Subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “When it is proved by a final judgment that an offense in connection with duties has been committed by a judge who participated in the original judgment, the judgment prior to the trial, or an investigation based on the judgment, or a prosecutor or senior judicial police officer who participated in the institution of a public prosecution or the investigation based on the indictment.” This refers to cases where it can be viewed that there is a separate final judgment or evidence in lieu of a final judgment as to the fact that the original judgment was obtained by the said public official’s criminal act (see Supreme Court Order 96Mo72, Aug. 29, 1996, etc.). While examining the Defendant’s assertion and record in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed that the judgment of the court below obtained a judge’s criminal act in which the judgment was involved, and thus, it constitutes “when there exists a ground for retrial” under Article 383 Subparag.

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

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)