logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1963. 8. 31. 선고 63도165 판결
[장물취득·알선][집11(2)형,023]
Main Issues

Cases where there is an error in the omission of judgment as to the statement of the reason for denying the establishment of a crime under law;

Summary of Judgment

In light of the special characteristics of military units, there is an error of law by failing to make a judgment on the assertion that there is no possibility of not complying with the instructions of superior officers, regarding the statement of the reason for excluding the establishment of a crime under Article 368(2) of the former Military Court Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3993, Dec. 4, 87).

[Reference Provisions]

Article 368(2) of the Military Court Act, Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Appellant, Defendant

Appellant

Judgment of the lower court

High Military Port 628 delivered on April 10, 1963, 628, such as the Korean Army Army, the Korean Army, the Korean Army, the Korean Army, the Korean Army, etc.

Text

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Army, High School, and Military Council.

Reasons

The first ground for appeal of attorney Park Jong-chul is examined.

According to the first ground of prosecution as to the defendant's defense counsel's submission in the order of the court below, it is obvious that the court below did not make any decision according to the original judgment despite the assertion of the fact falling under Article 368 (2) of the Military Court Act, because it is obvious that the defendant's defense counsel did not make any judgment on this argument because it is obvious that the court below did not make any judgment on this argument because it is against the previous precedents (4287 Form 73) of the court's previous precedents (4287 Form 73) that the court's decision was unlawful since the defendant's judgment was unlawful because he did not have a considerable interest in the organization life of the special military officer with severe common interests as in this case. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant's judgment was unlawful. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices pursuant to Articles 438 (1) and 439 (2) of the Military Court Act.

Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Justice Lee Young-chul (Presiding Judge)

arrow