A. Whether Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the court of final appeal, which limit the grounds of final appeal, violate Article 383 of the same Act, which provides that the court of final appeal may render a judgment without oral pleadings (negative)

B. Whether Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings contradicts the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (negative)

A. Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act limits the grounds for appeal, and Article 390 of the A-appeal Act provides that the court of final appeal may render a judgment, without oral pleadings, through a written hearing, cannot be deemed to violate Article 27 of the Constitution that provides for the right to a trial.

B. Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings cannot be inconsistent with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

A. Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 383, 390, and 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Do2639 delivered on January 15, 1980, 86Do1052 delivered on July 8, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Jeju District Court Decision 90No290 delivered on December 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The twenty-five days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The record reveals that the court of first instance or the court below notified the defendant that the defendant may refuse to make statements and may make a statement of profits (the trial records of the first and second instance court), there was a notice of the appointment of a public defender, a duplicate of the indictment, and a public defender (a receipt of the preparation of the Jeju Correctional Institution). The defendant was also appointed a lawyer in the first instance court.

In addition, the defendant made a confession of the facts charged in the first instance trial and tried through a simplified trial procedure, so Article 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply, and the appellate court, which is the appellate court, notified that the defendant can ask the opinion about the result of the examination of evidence and request the examination of evidence necessary to protect his right, and there is no trace that the defendant applied for the evidence.

In addition, even after examining the record, it does not seem that the first instance court or the lower court violated Article 275 or 280 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the trial proceedings.

2. The fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in the incomplete hearing.

3. Article 383(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act limits the grounds of appeal, and Article 390(a) of the same Act provides that the court of final appeal may render a judgment without oral pleadings through a written hearing cannot be deemed to violate Article 27 of the Constitution that provides for the right to a trial, and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings cannot be deemed to contravene the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration

5. Therefore, there is no reason for all arguments asserted from the opposite position.

6. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)