(a) A case that falls under subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 35 of the Military Criminal Act;

B. The case holding that it cannot be viewed that there was no possibility of expectation of lawful act

(a) A case that falls under subparagraphs 2 and 3 of Article 35 of the Military Criminal Act;

B. The case holding that it cannot be viewed that there was no possibility of expectation of lawful act

Article 35 of the Military Criminal Act; Article 12 of the Criminal Act; Article 4 of the Military Criminal Act

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 70No457 delivered on July 28, 1970, such as the Army of the second instance and the Army of the second instance.

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

The defense counsel early and the defendant themselves do not submit a statement of grounds for appeal.

In other words, around 02:00 on March 2, 1970, the Defendant was carrying out the patrol of the front line at a point of 262,296 in the Mancheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and at a point of 262,296, which was recognized by the lower court on the facts charged against the Defendant based on the written judgment of the first instance court cited by the lower court, and the Defendant was only responsible for Nonindicted 1’s captain during the patrol.

At the same time, Non-Indicted 1’s head head and head of the Military Criminal Act, and that Non-Indicted 3’s act of attack against Non-Indicted 5’s military officer who had been forced to escape in the position of North Korea was no longer likely to commit an attack against Non-Indicted 5’s will. The court below held that Non-Indicted 2’s act of attack against Non-Indicted 3 without any justifiable reason for attack against Non-Indicted 3’s order and without any justifiable reason for attack against Non-Indicted 3’s order, and that the defendant’s act of attack against Non-Indicted 5’s head of the military police station was no longer likely to constitute an attack against Non-Indicted 1, 2, etc., and that the defendant’s act of attack against Non-Indicted 3’s head of the military police station without any justifiable reason for attack against Non-Indicted 1’s head of the military police station. However, the court below’s order of attack against Non-Indicted 1’s head of the military police station cannot be seen as an attack against the defendant.

Therefore, this appeal by the defendant is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 437 of the Appellate Court Act.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)