Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Down, Attorney Jeong Byung-chul et al.

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of the appellant’s assertion;

In the Seoul Central District Court case 2014 Godan9364, the court issued a detention warrant on March 24, 2015 and did not follow the procedure under Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the above court's decision to issue a detention warrant on March 24, 2015 is unlawful.

2. Determination

Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "a person shall not be detained unless he/she has given an opportunity to defend himself/herself that he/she is guilty of a crime, grounds for detention, and is given an opportunity to defend himself/herself." This is not a procedure to be taken by a judge in the execution of a warrant of detention, but a procedure to be taken by a judge in the execution of the warrant of detention. Thus, if a court issues a warrant of detention without going through the procedure in advance in issuing the warrant of detention to the defendant, the decision to issue the warrant of detention is illegal. However, since the above provision aims to guarantee the procedural right of the defendant, if it can be deemed that the procedural right as prescribed in the above provision is substantially guaranteed, such as where a defense counsel is already selected in the trial, submission of defense materials, and a judgment under his/her defense is issued without going through all or part of the corresponding procedure, the decision to issue the warrant of detention shall not be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Order 85Mo12, Jul. 23, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 201Mo101, Oct. 1010

According to the records, the Defendant was indicted on September 26, 2014 by the Seoul Central District Court 2014 order 6923 order 2014 order 6923 order with respect to the crime of interference with general traffic, etc. on September 26, 2014, and was prosecuted on December 15, 2014 for interference with general traffic by the Seoul Central District Court 2014 order 2014 order 9364 order. On December 22, 2014, the above court decided to concurrently deliberate on the two cases. On January 20, 2015, the facts charged pursuant to the indictment as to the crime of interference with general traffic, etc. were read and gave the Defendant an opportunity to make statements on the charges against the Defendant under the defense of his defense counsel, and thereafter the above court issued the detention warrant as to the above case on March 24, 2015 order 94 order.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the facts charged against the Defendant was read during the fourth trial on the instant case No. 2014 Godan9364, and the defendant was given an opportunity to vindicate himself/herself as the defendant under the defense of his/her defense counsel. Thus, even if the above court did not formally undergo the procedure prescribed in Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act before issuing a detention warrant on March 24, 2015, even if it did not formally undergo the procedure prescribed in the above Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act before issuing the detention warrant, the procedural right under the above provision shall be deemed to have already been guaranteed to the defendant. Therefore, the decision of issuing the detention warrant issued on March 24, 20

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal of this case is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 414(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong Jin Lee (Presiding Judge)