The responsibility for the recovery of coal and remaining coal from ammunition officers in the training of ball cartridgess;

In accordance with the contents of the "Macks, ammunitions, and Explosives Inspection Table" attached to the Army Regulations, the responsibility of the controller and commander for recovery and confirmation of carbon emissions for the prevention of the outflow of ball cartridges in the training of ball cartridges, and the ammunition officer is responsible for the confirmation of the quantity of ammunition when he/she returns carbon and the remaining loaded coal, and he/she shall be responsible for the confirmation of the quantity of ammunition to be stored from that time when he/she returns it.

Article 74 of the Military Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin Jae-sung, Man-kak

82 High Military Court Decision 259 delivered on October 26, 1982

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance held that the defendant, as the officer in charge of the storage, management, and recovery, etc., of 0.38 and 0.38 and 810 and was paid for military attack on the 5th day of the following month, as the defendant was the officer in charge of the storage, management, and collection, etc., of the shot ammunition such as 0.38 and 0.38 and 810 and was recovered from the shot gun. When recovering the above shot, the court below found the shot to have been missing by the officer in charge of the shot and the recovered shot to have the shot and the remaining shot to have the shot confirmed that the shot and the remaining shot could not be leaked out of the military, and the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 5 and the non-indicted 4 and the non-indicted shot were found to have been missing from the shot gun without any duty to do so.

2. According to the contents of the Army Regulations, which are invoked by the judgment below, attached to the Regulations on the Safety Control of Firearms, ammunition, and Explosives Inspection Table (Explosion No. 281 of the Investigation Record), the defendant is responsible for the recovery and confirmation of the remaining ammunition and the remaining loaded bullets in the training for the ball gun shooting, and the officer responsible for the confirmation of whether the remaining ammunition and the returned ammunition coincide with the unexplosion. Thus, the defendant is responsible for the confirmation of the quantity at the time of the return of the remaining ammunition and the remaining loaded ammunition, which were unexploded for military shooting, and there is no evidence that can be seen as the defendant's responsibility for recovery of the remaining ball cartridges and the remaining loaded bullets, and thus, it cannot be found that the first instance court's measure is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts without evidence.

3. In addition, according to the testimony of the court below's witness Kim Tae-tae, 100% of the fire extinguishing rifle 810 is returned to the non-indicted 1, and there is no evidence to support that the return was actually made by the defendant. Thus, the return is deemed to have been delivered to the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, who is the non-indicted 2, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Among the above fire extinguishing, the non-indicted 2 was concealed and stolen, and there is no evidence to support that the non-indicted 2 was stolen some of the fire extinguishing rifle from the non-indicted 2, even if examining the record, there is no evidence to conclude the facts without evidence, and there is no reason to see that there was a theft of the part of the fire extinguishing rifle from the non-indicted 1.

4. According to the above decision, there is no criticism that the loss of 0.38 balls or 35 balls cannot be avoided as a final determination of facts. In addition, if the judgment purport that the lost military supplies include 35 balls and balls together with the remaining ball cartridges, it is not clear as a statement of crime unless the remaining balls and several balls are specified in detail, and thus, it is difficult to avoid criticism that there is a lack of reason in the incomplete hearing and the reasoning of the judgment.

5. Although such illegality, etc. has influenced the outcome of the trial, it is obvious that the judgment of the court below which dismissed the appeal by the defendant was erroneous and dismissed, such as the judgment of the court of first instance, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, is justifiable in this regard.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)