Effect of the indictment written in the future of the first instance court

According to the prosecutor's letter of establishment of a public prosecution bound in the records of Japanese case, in which a new prosecution has been instituted in the future of the Busan District Court, which is in violation of the form of law, and the name of the criminal and the defendant have been stated in the title of the new indictment, which is the letter of establishment of a public prosecution, and the judgment which the Busan District Court decided in the same case on the subordinate day of the next day of the year following the Busan District Court was the date of new establishment of a public prosecution due to the whole objection, and it is obvious that the new indictment was instituted in Busan District Court, which is the competent authority, and it is reasonable to see that the new indictment was not instituted in Busan District Court, which is the cause of the judgment, and it is obvious that the prosecution was instituted in Daegu High Court

Articles 357 and 359 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Prosecutor

Busan District Court and Daegu High Court of the second instance

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the chief public prosecutor of the Daegu High Public Prosecutor's Office are as follows: (a) the first public prosecutor's statement that the defendant will be dismissed for reasons of the rejection of prosecution; (b) the prosecution was made in the future of the Busan High Public Prosecutor's new signature book; and (c) the first public prosecutor's statement that the defendant had been detained for 00,000 won or more at the time of his own request and that the defendant would not have been detained for 50,000 won or more at the time of his own request; (d) the first public prosecutor's statement that the defendant would not have been detained for 10,000 won or more at the time of his own request and that the defendant would not have been detained for 50,000 won or more at the time of his own request; and (d) the court below's dismissal of the facts that the defendant had been detained for 10,000 won or more at the time of his own request by the second public prosecutor's new signature book as well as for 1000,000,0000,0000 won or more of Japan.

According to the prosecutor's letter of public prosecution bound to the records of this case (as stated in the letter of 430 misunderstandings), the court below stated the name of the defendant and the name of the defendant in violation of the legal method, and stated the new letter of indictment in the Busan District Court on February 1, 200, the court below held that the defendant's testimony was not sufficient to find that the defendant's non-indicted 4 witness's new confinement and the defendant's testimony was not based on the abstract evidence of this case, and it is clear that the court below did not prosecute the Busan District Court as well as the Daegu High Court, which is its competent agency, because it is reasonable to see that the defendant's testimony was not based on the abstract evidence of this case, because the defendant's non-indicted 4's new confinement and the defendant's testimony was not based on the abstract evidence of this case, and it can be acknowledged that the defendant's testimony was not based on the abstract evidence of this case.

Since the original judgment is recognized to be unable to dismiss the reversal in the same respect as above, the judgment on such grounds of appeal is omitted, and it is so decided as per Disposition by Article 447 and Article 448-2 of the former Criminal Procedure Law Article 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)