Whether the Guidelines for Coastal Boundary Practice by the Head of the 31th Army Head of the Army that a worker at the coast guard must carry guns and ball cartridges is "justifiable orders" as stipulated in Article 47 of the Military Criminal Act (affirmative)

"Justifiable order" under Article 47 of the Military Criminal Act refers to an order issued by an institution in charge of water control, which is a legislative institution, to an important and physical specific matter necessary for water control action delegated by the National Assembly, which is a legislative institution, and in essence refers to an order pertaining to the actual contents of the Criminal Act, which is a legislative matter. If the Guidelines for Coastal Boundary Practice by the Head of the 31st Army leader, that the workers on the coast guard duty of the 31st Army leader, who carry guns and ball cartridges, is issued to take immediate measures when a situation occurs to cope with water control operations of the military, then the above "justifiable order" constitutes "justifiable order".

Article 47 of the Military Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Do1846 delivered on February 18, 1969, 70Do2540 delivered on February 9, 1971, and 70Do2526 delivered on March 9, 1971, and 73Do2560 delivered on December 11, 1973, and 82Do399 delivered on July 27, 1982, and 84Do1329 delivered on September 25, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney-at-law conciliation system

Supreme Court Decision 88Do82 delivered on June 15, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel are examined.

Article 47 of the Military Criminal Act provides that "reasonable order" means an order issued by the National Assembly, which is a legislative body of an institution in charge of traffic rights, with respect to important and physical matters necessary for traffic actions delegated to the above Act, and in essence, means an order falling under the substantial contents of the Criminal Act, which is a legislative matter, which is a legislative matter; Supreme Court Decision 68Do1846 Decided February 18, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 70Do2540 Decided February 9, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 69Do113 Decided February 11, 197; Supreme Court Decision 70Do2526 Decided March 9, 197; Supreme Court Decision 73Do2560 Decided December 11, 1973; Supreme Court Decision 82Do3946 Decided July 27, 192; Supreme Court Decision 79Do2549 Decided April 16, 198.

In addition, according to relevant evidence and records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's act was a legitimate act that does not violate social rules because the defendant did not carry guns and ball cartridges in order to effectively conduct the patrol of the sentry and there is no evidence to support that the defendant's act was a legitimate act that does not violate social rules. Therefore, there is no reason to criticize this.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)