Binding Force of the judgment of the Supreme Court remanded

In a case where the court of final appeal, which received a case reversed by the Supreme Court, is contrary to the legal judgment rendered by the court of final appeal as the reason for reversal, unless there is a change in the factual relations premised on the judgment of remand or there is a change in statutes after examining new materials, and the court of final appeal to which the case was remanded is re-appealed, the court of final appeal to which the court of final appeal to which the case was remanded belongs

Article 439(2) of the Military Court Act, Article 7-2 of the Court Organization Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Do224 delivered on October 10, 1963

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Yong-hoon

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na115 delivered on October 5, 1984

Supreme Court Decision 83Do3260 Delivered on March 27, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Army, High School, and Military Court.

The defendant's first ground for appeal is examined.

1. The military court meeting to which the case was reversed by the Supreme Court shall examine and investigate new materials, and if there is any change in facts premised on the judgment of remand, or there is any change in statutes, it shall be bound by the legal judgment rendered by the court of final appeal as to the case, and if the case is re-appealed, the court of final appeal shall be bound by its own decision taken on the grounds of reversal, and shall not change such decision (see Supreme Court Decision 63Do224, Oct. 10, 1963; 83Do383, Apr. 18, 1983). According to the records, it shall be deemed that the defendant was unable to carry out his duties without any justifiable reason after leaving his office for the first time after leaving his office for the reason that he was unable to carry out such duties without any justifiable reason after leaving office for the first time after leaving office for the reason that he was unable to carry out such duties without any reason, and thus, it shall be deemed that the defendant was unable to carry out such duties without any justifiable reason after leaving office for the public official to carry out his duties without any danger or ex officio.

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the same facts as recognized by the court below, and determined that the duty of the officer on duty is the core element of the military boundary system, such as modern scientific fields and inter alia, that the duty of the officer is to manage the unit in question on behalf of the commander outside of daily hours and to take measures for prompt and accurate status assessment and to encourage him/her to frequently patrol and check his/her duty under the organic connection with the military duty system. Since the duty of the officer on duty is the key element of the military boundary system, such as modern scientific fields and inter alia, the duty of the officer to check and check the situation of duty of the officer on behalf of the commander, such as discipline of the military service, the regulations on military service, the guidelines for boundary duty, and the guidelines for duty of the officer on duty, and the duty of the officer on duty should be clearly ordered to check the situation of duty of the officer on behalf of the commander on duty and to check the situation of duty of the inspector on the ground that it is not necessary to check and supervise the position of the officer on duty.

3. However, if a party member's ground for destruction is a party member's duty, it is not only his duty but also the defendant's duty to conduct patrol and supervision thoroughly, but also the defendant remains free from his duty in a situation where he can immediately shoulder his duty at a similar working place at the time. In such a case, he violated his loyalty duty, but it cannot be deemed that he intentionally renounces or deserts his duty under Article 122 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the contents of the military law, regulations and guidelines of the above Military Service Rule, etc. adopted as evidence after remand, adopted by the court below, do not change the scope and importance of the duty imposed on the defendant as a party member's duty officer, since the materials which recognize its importance as a premise for the legal judgment of the party member's member, the court below's determination of the same facts merely based on the materials submitted and examined at the court below prior to remand without examining and examining any new materials on this point, and it did not affect the judgment's conclusion that the defendant's legal opinion was remanded differently from that of the judgment of remand, and it did not violate the above judgment.

4. Therefore, without examining the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal and defense counsel's grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below-appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)