The illegality of the trial by a judge who does not participate in the trial

According to the trial records of the court below, the judge who participated in the trial of this Article is the presiding judge "A", "B" among certified judicial scrivenerss, "B" among certified judicial scrivenerss, "J" among certified judicial scrivenerss, and "JJ" among the judges. The court below's decision is signed and sealed by "JJ" among the judges who did not participate in the trial, and "JJ" among the judges, so the provisions of Articles 74 (1) and 349 of the Military Court Law are to protect the rights and interests of the criminal defendant by promoting the fairness of the trial so that the judges who did not participate in the trial cannot participate in the trial, and thus, the judge who did not participate in the trial can be deemed to be illegal in the trial proceedings in violation of the basic principles of criminal procedure, and the composition of the court of the judgment violates the law, and such judgment shall be reversed.

Article 75 of the Military Court Act, Articles 41 and 301 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Appellant

On November 30, 1962, the Gyeonggi Martial Law and the Ordinary Military Forces Act of the second instance, and the High Military Forces Act of the second instance. 62 High Military Port166

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Army, High School, and Military Council.

According to the trial records of the court below, the judge who participated in the trial of this case is five persons from the junnam, Lee Jong-sik, Lee Jae-sik, Lee Jong-sik, Lee, Lee Sung-sung, and Park Jin-ok. According to the judgment of the court below, the judge who participated in the trial of this case is five persons from the junnam, Lee Jong-nam, Lee Jae-ok, Lee Jae-ok, Park Jae-ok and Park Jae-ok, and the two persons from the jun-ok are not involved in the whole-time trial, and the judgment of the court below is clearly recorded that he is the judge who did not participate in the whole-time trial. Although the presiding judge's proxy signature was stated in the business trip, the judgment of the court below cannot be recognized as the judgment of the court below because there is a serious violation of Article 9 (1) and Article 22 of the Constitution, and the summary of the defendant's grounds for appeal is erroneous in the judgment of the court below and the sentencing is too heavy.

Examining the records of this case, if a judge participating in the trial of the court below takes part in the trial of the court below from among the judge Park Sung-sung-sung-soon-soon-soon-so-called judge Lee Sung-so-so-young-so-so-young-so-young-so-young-so-so-young-so-so-young-so-young-so-so-called judge, he may verify that the judge's signature and seal is affixed to the trial of the court among the judges who did not participate in the trial of the court below pursuant to Article 75 (1) of the Gun Council Act and Article 349 of the Gun Council Act provides that the judge's signature and seal should be affixed to the trial of the court of this case after the revision of the court, the law that provides that the judge who did not participate in the trial of the court shall not participate in the trial and shall protect the rights and interests of the criminal defendant by promoting the fairness of the trial of the court, so that the judge who did not participate in the trial of the court of the court may only violate the basic principles in the criminal procedure, and thus the judgment of the court of this case is reversed.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, who did not decide on the grounds of appeal by the defendant and participated in accordance with Article 439 of the Military Court Act.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the two Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) shall have the highest leapbal leaps