The legitimacy of the application for transfer of jurisdiction with the ground that the application for challenge against the judge in charge and the witness with perjury is being investigated by the public prosecutor's office within the jurisdiction of another court (negative)

The fact that the defendant can file an application for transfer of jurisdiction is limited to the time there is a reason stipulated in Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the applicant filed an application for challenge against the judge in charge of the defendant's violation of the National Security Act against the applicant, and the fact that the defendant is being investigated by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, which filed a complaint with the Supreme Prosecutors' Office against the non-indicted (A) who has issued the above defendant's written indictment, cannot exercise jurisdiction by the Suwon District Court which is the competent court of the above defendant's case, or by the above court,

Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Applicant

The petitioner's application for transfer to jurisdiction is dismissed.

The gist of the reason for this case’s application is that the applicant filed a motion to challenge the judge in charge of the defendant’s violation of the National Security Act (Act No. 82No373) against the applicant, and that the applicant filed a complaint with the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office concerning the above accused case, and is conducting an investigation at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, the applicant filed a complaint with the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office on Kim Yong-ran, etc., and therefore, the appellate court’

However, the defendant is entitled to file an application for the transfer of jurisdiction only when there exists a reason under Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the fact alleged by the applicant is not sufficient to exercise jurisdiction by the Suwon District Court, which is the competent court of the above defendant's case, or by the above court, it cannot be said that it is difficult to maintain the fairness of the trial if the judgment of the above defendant was rendered for the above defendant's case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is a reason under

Therefore, the motion for transfer of jurisdiction is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)