The competent court of the requested case seeking the invalidation of sentence sentenced by the Revolution Court;

Article 337 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a sentence of invalidation of punishment shall be filed with a court corresponding to the prosecutor's office in which the record is kept, and since the Supreme Court and the prosecutor's office are dissolved under Article 14 (1) and (3) of the Act on the Organization of the Revolution and the Prosecutor's Office, the record and property are stipulated to be kept by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the competent court of the case of application for invalidation of punishment imposed by the above court is the Supreme Court corresponding to

Article 337 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 14 of the Act on the Organization of the Court of Revolution and the Prosecutor's Office of the Revolution (Abolition of Act No. 630)

Applicant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Order 75 seconds427 (Decision 75 seconds427)

The original decision shall be revoked.

Any objection filed by the applicant shall be dismissed.

According to the record and original decision, on October 30, 1961, the court of original judgment sentenced the applicant to a violation of the Special Act on the Punishment of Special Crimes, Law No. 118, 4294 against the applicant on a short term on October 30, 1961 at the request of the applicant (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 15 years; 160 days out of the number of detention days before the judgment is rendered shall be included in the above sentence).

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the original decision made at the court below, which is not the court corresponding to the prosecutor's office keeping records, is clear that the original decision made at the court below, which is not the court corresponding to the prosecutor's office keeping records, is in violation of jurisdiction. Thus, according to Article 337 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the pronouncement of the effect of punishment is stipulated to be applied to the court corresponding to the prosecutor's office keeping records of the case. According to Article 14 (1) and (3) of the Act on the Organization of the Revolution and the Prosecutor's Office, where the adjudication of the court below and the prosecutor's office of the Act are dissolved, the records and property preserved by the Revolution and the prosecutor's office of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office shall be kept respectively in the Supreme Court and the prosecutor's office of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office. Thus, the jurisdiction of the case of the application of the effect of punishment belongs to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office corresponding to the prosecutor's office which is the office of keeping original records (In accordance with the records of one case record, it cannot be known that a fire exists.

Therefore, since the original decision made by the court of original judgment without jurisdiction over this case is illegal, the prosecutor's appeal is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of original judgment that the applicant's objection is dismissed by Article 414 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)