A. Permission of an immediate appeal on the ground of a violation of the constitutional law, order or rule that affected the decision of compensation under the Criminal Compensation Act

(b) Effect of a decision on criminal compensation made by a military court without jurisdiction;

(c) Validity of a decision to compensate for forfeited goods to persons who have received a judgment of acquittal.

A. Constitutional order of the Criminal Compensation Act that affected a decision of compensation under the Criminal Compensation Act; or

The granting of an immediate appeal on the ground that the rules have been violated.

(b) the effect of the decision on criminal compensation made by a military court without jurisdiction;

(c)Effect of a decision to compensate for forfeited goods to persons who have received a judgment of acquittal.

Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 4, 6, 19(1), 22, 23, 26(1) of the Criminal Compensation Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1403 delivered on February 24, 1965, Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1403 delivered on February 24, 1965

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to the provisions of Article 19(1) of the Criminal Compensation Act, there is no appeal against the decision of compensation.

However, Article 102 of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall finally examine so-called unconstitutionality and illegality, and on the other hand, Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act that applies mutatis mutandis under Article 23 of the Criminal Compensation Act may immediately file an appeal with the Supreme Court against the ruling of the appellate court or the High Court on the ground that there is a violation of the Constitution or regulations affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that an immediate appeal may be filed with the Supreme Court under Article 19(1) of the Criminal Compensation Act, and that the decision of the lower court on the compensation of the plaintiff cannot be deemed as null and void on the ground that the above decision of the Supreme Court on the compensation of the plaintiff is not a final and conclusive judgment of the Supreme Court on the ground that the above decision of the first instance court on the compensation of the plaintiff is not a valid one under Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the other hand, since the decision of the lower court on the compensation of the plaintiff cannot be seen as a final and conclusive judgment of the Supreme Court.

Justices Song Dong-dong et al. (Presiding Justice)