Nature of the notice period for the call for training of homeland reserve forces

Article 13 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act shall be deemed to be a mandatory provision. Therefore, a notice of convocation delivered one day before education and training has no effect as a notice of convocation.

Article 6-2 of the Establishment of Reserve Forces Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Establishment of Reserve Forces Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do1011 Decided May 10, 197 (Dakhd 11564, Supreme Court Decision 25Na211, Decision 6-2(2)1528)

Defendant 1 and three others

Prosecutor, Defendant, etc.

Gwangju District Court Decision 76 high-level39, 51, 76 high-level989)

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on Defendant 2 is reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One hundred and seventy days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

A seized one set of batteries (No. 63), a knife (No. 64) shall be confiscated from Defendant 2.

All appeals filed by Defendant 1 and 3 and the Prosecutor against Defendant 1, 3 and 4 are dismissed.

The gist of the prosecutor's appeal No. 1 is that the court below found Defendant 1 not guilty of the violation of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second point is that the sentencing of the court below which sentenced Defendant 1 and 3 to Defendant 5 years of imprisonment, 4 years of long-term imprisonment, 5 years of long-term, and 3 years of imprisonment to Defendant 4 (short-term suspension of execution for five years) is unfair, and that the sentencing of the court below is unfair. The first point of the reasons for appeal by Defendant 1, 3, and 2 is that the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of the injury by robbery without any evidence as to the injury by robbery, and there is a defect in violation of the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The second point is that each of the above sentencing of the court below against the defendants is too inappropriate; and

1. To judge the first ground for appeal by the prosecutor; and

“Defendant 1 is a person organized in the homeland reserve forces, and around 11:00 on January 26, 1976, at the house of the defendant fourth-class non-party 1 in Jung-dong, Jung-gu, Gwangju-si (hereinafter omitted), the first-class headquarters of the defendant 1 in Gwangju-si, the first-class 27th day of the same month and the notice of call-up for education of homeland reserve forces issued in accordance with Article 6138 of the Army that he would undergo the education and training of homeland reserve forces without any justifiable reason.” The court below issued the notice of call-up to the defendant under Article 6-2(1) of the Establishment of homeland Reserve Forces Act and Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act that, when intending to train the reserve forces members, the notice of call-up should be delivered to the person in question at least seven days before the date of education and training, and thus, the notice of call-up to the defendant under Article 16(2) of the same Act does not constitute a mandatory provision.

I think, since the education and training of homeland reserve forces belongs to the national defense duty, Article 13 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Establishment of the homeland reserve forces Act, which provides for procedures necessary for the education and training, should be strictly interpreted so that the administrative authority or the military unit does not intervene. In addition, the above provision of the Enforcement Decree provides that the training of homeland reserve forces shall be limited to the extent that the training of homeland reserve forces does not interfere with the livelihood of the possible homeland reserve forces, etc., and in addition, Article 13 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act shall be deemed to be a mandatory provision. Therefore, in the case of the main proposal delivered one day prior to education and training, the above notice does not have any validity as a notice of call provided for in the Establishment of the homeland Reserve Forces Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the National Reserve Forces Act, and there is no error of law that misleads the interpretation of statutes in the judgment of the court below, and there is no ground for

2. We examine Defendant 1, 3, and 2's summary of the grounds for appeal against the defense counsel's violation of law, i.e., violation of the law. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below (However, according to the statement of Nonindicted 2, the prosecutor prepared by the court below as evidence of guilt, which acquired the admissibility of evidence in the first instance court), it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts of robbery injury in the course of the original trial against the Defendants. Thus, we cannot accept the argument that the court below violated the law that found the criminal facts of robbery without any evidence.

3. In addition, if Defendant 1, 3, and 4’s defense counsel’s grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing and the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing as to Defendant 3, 1, and 4’s respective ages and environment, intelligence, character and conduct, motive and means of crime, as well as various conditions of sentencing, including the circumstances after the crime, such as the following: (a) the court below’s above sentencing as to Defendant 1, 3, and 4 cannot be deemed to be too heavy and too unreasonable or unreasonable; and (b) thus, the above argument of unfair sentencing as to Defendant 1, 3, and 4 cannot be accepted as well as its grounds for appeal.

4. Finally, according to the records of this case, Defendant 2 could be recognized as born on December 17, 1956 by the court below on Defendant 2 ex officio. Thus, the above Defendant shall be deemed to have reached the age of majority from December 17, 1976, and in the trial, Defendant 2 shall be sentenced to a regular sentence against Defendant 2. Thus, the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 cannot avoid reversal in this point.

5. Accordingly, each appeal filed by Defendant 1 and 3 and each appeal filed by the prosecutor against Defendant 1, 3, and 4 are without merit. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s dismissal under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed. The prosecutor’s decision on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing against Defendant 2 is omitted, and the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio and the decision is delivered as follows in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as to Defendant 2

1. Defendant 2, around 15:00 on April 9, 1976, discussed to forcibly collect money and goods from solitary houses at the place of work of the judic mining center located behind the Yeng-gun of Bosung-gun, and opened a public offering on April 10, 1976. Defendant 1, 3, and 4, who opened the house with tobacco at the victim non-indicted 3 (age 73 per 73) of Bosung-gun on April 10, 1976. Defendant 1, 1, 3, and 5, 3, and 1, 3, and 4, 3, and 5, and 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, and 1, 1, 3, and 1, 1, 1, 3, and 1, 1, 3, and 5, the above 5, and 1,3, the above 5,000 knife k k k k k k k kn'sk k k k.

2.In collaboration with the upper accused 1 and 3:

A. At around 01:30 on April 21, 1976, as if the victim non-indicted 4 (age 65 omitted) opened tobacco at the beginning of each year of the Yacheon-gun (age 65) and all the defendants have mast and straw with one knife knife, and open a door-to-door visit attached to the store while entering the store and leaving it out of the store after having string up the string of the string, the non-indicted 4, who was stationed in the batteries, and the grandchildren of the son, were 6 years old (age 14), the 6 (age 14), the non-indicted 7 (age 13), the face of the knife knife of each 7 (age 13), the knife of the knife and knife of the knife, the 15th of the 7th of the knife, the 15th of the g.

나, 위 일시 및 장소에서 위 피해자들이 즉시 신고를 하지 못하게 하기 위하여 그곳에 있던 나이롱줄과 철사로 공소외 4의 손목과 공소외 5의 손목과 함께, 공소외 6과 공소외 7의 손목을 함께 묶고 이불로 덮어 씌운후 꼼짝하면 죽이겠다고 말하여 동인 등을 체포한 것이다.

The facts in the judgment of the court below are examined:

1. Statement that conforms to each of the facts contained in the judgment below and the trial court of the court below

1. Among the trial records of the lower court, the statement to the effect that it conforms to the facts in its holding among the witness examination protocol against Nonindicted 3

1. Each statement to the effect that it conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment among the suspect interrogation records as to Defendant 1, 3, 2, and 4 prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor to the effect that it conforms to the part of the facts in the judgment in each statement made by Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 2

1. Statement to the effect that it conforms to the judgment of the court in light of the facts in the protocol of statement regarding Nonindicted 6's handling of affairs

1. It is proved that the evidence seized can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the existence, etc. of the articles listed in subparagraphs 3 through 64.

Article 37, Article 33, Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that the second half of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, Article 34 (2) and (1), Article 33 of the same Act; second half of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, Article 34 (1), Article 2 (1), Article 276 (1), and Article 30 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; second of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, for the robbery, injury, and special robbery of the judgment; third of the above crimes shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, Article 37 of the Criminal Act; third of the above crimes shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act; third of the above crimes shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, and third of the above crimes shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, and third of the above crimes shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, second of the above crimes by imprisonment with prison labor, fourth of Article 50 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)