(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.9.14. 선고 2018고합762 판결

In May 1, 2004, the Defendant received KRW 15 million from G to November 27, 2004 in total five times from the above date and received KRW 93 million from G, under the pretext of receiving a request from a public official in charge of the Korea Railroad to receive a permit for use of and benefit from the said I Station site, on the lease of 954 railroad site located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, which is managed by the Korea Railroad, from the real estate lessor G, which was introduced through F, for a total of five times from the above date and time to November 27, 2004. Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 93 million on the pretext of soliciting or arranging the affairs handled by a public official.

2. Determination as to whether the violation of jurisdiction has been violated

A. Summary of the assertion

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the court has no territorial jurisdiction over this case before the statement of the accused case is transferred to the court having jurisdiction over the domicile of the accused for the reason of violation of jurisdiction.

B. Determination

1) Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides territorial jurisdiction as the place of crime, the defendant's domicile, residence, or present location. According to the facts charged, the crime of this case is "Seoul Yongsan-gu D Soft case E, and the address, residence, or present location of the defendant is "J apartment at Seosan, J apartment at Seosan, 107 Dong 1506," and all of the records of this case do not fall under the jurisdiction of this court, and even if examining the records of this case, there is no data that the crime place, the defendant's domicile, residence, present location is located within the jurisdiction of this court.

2) Meanwhile, Article 34 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "where the case is not under its jurisdiction, the court shall transfer the whole or part of the lawsuit to the same class court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant," but the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "where the defendant does not have jurisdiction over the whole or part of the lawsuit, the court may transfer the case to the same class court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant by decision," but Article 8 (1) of the same Act provides that "where the defendant is not under its jurisdiction, the court may, by decision, transfer the case to the same class court having jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant," but the above provision provides that "where the defendant is not under its jurisdiction, the court shall have jurisdiction over the defendant" and its purport is under the premise that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant, but the court shall not have jurisdiction over the present location of the defendant for the convenience of hearing and the interest of the defendant, and it shall not be interpreted that the case should be transferred without jurisdiction even if the defendant is not under its jurisdiction (see Supreme Court Decision 27Do275, October 10, 1978, etc.).

3. Conclusion

If so, this case comes under the jurisdiction of this court, it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act.