The case holding that the submission of quasi-appeals against the prosecutor's disposition on the execution of judgment should be judged by considering it as an objection under Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In a case where a protective custody judgment becomes final and conclusive and conclusive, and the prosecutor decides to revoke the execution of the protective custody after being released from the protective custody during the protective custody period, and in a case where the prosecutor conducts a disposition to direct the remaining execution of the protective custody, if the quasi-appeal was submitted to the purport that the disposition is unreasonable, it shall be determined by deeming the prosecutor’s objection against the prosecutor’s disposition on the execution of the judgment to have been filed by the court (convenor) which pronounced the judgment in accordance with Article 42 of the Social Protection Act and

Articles 417 and 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Persons under guard;

[Appellant]

Seoul Criminal Court Order 93 Assistant1 dated June 22, 1993

The order of the court below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Seoul Criminal Court.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. On November 28, 1986, the court below appealed from the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for three years and seven years for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). However, on March 25, 1987, the court below decided that the prosecutor's subsequent disposition of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) or the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) was not executed after the completion of the sentence for a prosecuted case as of February 13, 1989. However, the court below determined that the prosecutor's subsequent disposition of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of the Prosecutor's. was not executed after the subsequent order.

2. However, even based on the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below should have determined that the claimant raised an objection against the prosecutor's disposition on the execution of the judgment, even if the claimant submitted the document of quasi-appeal, even if the claimant submitted the document of quasi-appeal, it should have determined that the claimant raised an objection against the prosecutor's disposition on the execution of the judgment in accordance with Article 42 of the Social Protection Act and Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3. Nevertheless, the court below held that there is no reason to file a quasi-appeal for the same reason as the claimant made a quasi-appeal pursuant to Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court below's order does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the filing of objections under Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the decision. Thus, the court below's order is reversed without determining the grounds for reappeal and the court which rendered the decision is remanded to the Seoul Criminal District Court for further proceedings. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)