The meaning of "when there is a concern about a fair trial" under Article 18 (1) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 18 (1) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the cause of challenge does not refer to the time when there is a subjective circumstance that the party is likely to become an unfair judgment, but it refers to the time when there is an objective circumstance that it is reasonable to recognize that it would be unfair judgment in relation to a case with a judge as an ordinary person.

Article 18 (1) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 87Du10 dated October 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1802) 90Mo44 dated November 2, 1990 (Gong1991, 669) Supreme Court Order 91Mo79 dated December 7, 1991 (Gong1992, 548) 95Mo10 dated April 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 2002)

Re-appellant

Gwangju High Court Order 95 seconds40 dated December 6, 1995

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The court below did not refer to the case where there is a subjective circumstance that the parties might be unfair trial" under Article 18 (1) 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the reason for challenge. The court below does not mean the case where there is an objective circumstance that it is reasonable to conclude that it would be unfair trial in relation to a judge as an ordinary case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 87Du10, Oct. 21, 1987; 90Mo44, Nov. 2, 1990). In this case, the court below did not adopt the party's evidence, and it cannot be deemed that there is an objective circumstance that it is difficult to expect the fairness of trial, and it cannot be viewed that the court below's decision that the court below rejected the defendant's motion for perusal of court records because it is a public defender's appointment of public defender, and it cannot be viewed that the court below's decision that the court below rejected the defendant's motion for an unreasonable and unfair trial because there is no such objective reason that the court below rejected the defendant's motion for pleading.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)