The ruling of the High Court under Article 262 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is in violation of the Constitution or the Act, and the ruling of the High Court is the denial of the reappeal.

Paragraph 2 of this Article, which denies an appeal against a ruling of adjudication, has been changed to an amendment to Article 415 of this Act, so a ruling of adjudication may be re-appealed on the ground that it violates the Constitution or laws.

Article 102 of the Constitution, Articles 262(1) and 262(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court

The decision of the court below on December 8, 1964 by the court below is reversed, and the reappeal on December 5, 1964 by the re-appellant is dismissed.

First of all, the grounds for reappeal of the reappeal received on December 14, 1964 are examined.

I think, it should be interpreted that the judgment of judicial disposition under Article 102 (2) of the Constitution can be finally examined by the Supreme Court as to whether it violates the Constitution or the law. Thus, the amendment of Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act of December 13, 1963 as to the decision of Article 262 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of December 13, 1963 can be re-appeal as long as it violates the Constitution or the law, and Article 262 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the same Act should be deemed to be changed to the extent that it conflicts with Article 415 of the above Criminal Procedure Act amended after Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. However, the court below cannot file a complaint against the ruling of ruling of Article 102 (1) of the same Act of the same Act of December 5, 1964, and it is erroneous that the ruling of the court below of December 8, 1964 of the same Act of December 15, 1964.

However, even if a military prosecutor does not directly investigate a case, he can impose a non-prosecution disposition when it is possible to grasp the contents of the case only by a judicial police officer's investigation results, and a high court which has received an application for adjudication cannot make a decision under Article 262 (1) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the investigation agency's investigation of the case is insufficient, and the court below's decision that "the prosecutor's disposition to issue a non-prosecution disposition is recognized to have considerable grounds for the lack of sufficient investigation of the case" shall not be deemed to be a violation of Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no reason for the court below to regard it as a violation of Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the facts stated in Article 307 of the same Act refer to the Facts Act, so it shall not be deemed that the court below erred in judging the legality of a non-prosecution disposition, which is not a crime charged with public prosecution, and it shall not be admitted as an independent opinion since the court below failed to make a decision within the period under Article 262 (1)

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Gyeong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge) Dog-Gyeong-Gyeong-do and Kim Jong-dong, Kim & Han-kak, Hong-kak, Kim Jong-won, Man-man, Mag-ri,