logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.08.21 2014재노2 (1)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Progression to the review of this case

A. On October 13, 1981, the Defendant was indicted as charges of violating the National Security Act, as indicated in the separate sheet, by Suwon District Court 81Mo3160, and this court found the Defendant guilty of the above charges on February 18, 1982, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of three years and a suspended sentence of two years.

B. On May 11, 1984, the court below reversed the judgment of the court below and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of two years and a suspension of qualification of one year.

(hereinafter referred to as the "case subject to review") c.

The Defendant appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial (Supreme Court Decision 84Do1319). On October 10, 1984, the judgment dismissing the Defendant’s final appeal became final and conclusive.

On February 17, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition for retrial with this court by asserting that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 and 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding a judgment subject to retrial. On May 1, 2014, this court rendered a petition for retrial on the ground that “The Defendant was investigated by an investigator belonging to the Sungnam Police Station at the time in a state of unlawful detention from the forced act in a voluntary manner without a warrant, and until the detention warrant was issued and executed,” and the investigator’s above act constitutes an illegal arrest and detention under Article 124 of the Criminal Act. As to the above crime, the statute of limitations (five years) under Article 249(1)4 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007) has already expired, the instant case and the judicial police officer, who participated in the investigation based on the judgment prior to that judgment, could not obtain a final judgment on the relevant crime because it constitutes grounds for retrial under Articles 4207 and 242.”

2...

arrow