(a) In case where the original judgment is reversed in accordance with the proviso to subparagraph 1 of Article 489 of the Military Law Association Act, and the case where the original judgment is remanded or transferred to the Military Law Association of the second instance, the adjudication on the

(b) a practice that is found not contrary to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes.

A. As to the judgment sentenced to a fine of 180,00 won, the original judgment, instead of reducing the fine of 54.00 won, newly confiscated goods equivalent to the market price of 89,583 won, cannot be said to violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

B. In a case where the original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded or transferred again to the High Military Court Council pursuant to the proviso of Article 489 subparagraph 1 of the former Military Court Act (wholly amended by Act No. 3993, Dec. 4, 87), it shall be interpreted that the case shall be remanded or transferred, or that the case shall be judged again according to the structure of the court at the same time. In addition, as long as the case has been tried again by the defendant under the text of the law, the appellate court, which is not the court of law, shall be decided by considering the fact

Article 489 (proviso to Article 446 of the Criminal Procedure Act) and Article 427 (Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act)

Defendant

The former South-North Martial Law and the Second Martial Law, etc. at the Army in the Korean Army in the Korean Army in the Korean War, etc. at the Korean Army in the Korean Army in the Korean War.

The final appeal is dismissed.

Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

In the case of Article 446 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the purport of Article 446 of the Criminal Procedure Act is to mislead the application of the law to the facts established by the original judgment and to the effect that when the defendant is disadvantageous to him/her, the Supreme Court shall render a new judgment on the accused case by applying the law only, but the proviso of Article 489 subparagraph 1 of the Military Court Act provides that when the original judgment is disadvantageous to the defendant, the original judgment shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded or transferred to the High Military Court Council to render a new judgment on the accused case. In this case, the High Military Court Council, which has been remanded or transferred, shall be subject to the limitation that it shall follow the interpretation of the law as decided by the Supreme Court, but it shall be interpreted that the new judgment should be made in accordance with the structure of the court, and as long as it has been decided again with the case under the law, it shall be interpreted that the judgment should also be made in consideration of this fact if there has been a change in the fact that the original judgment was not a

Therefore, when the original judgment is rendered, it is not illegal because the defendant, not a juvenile, did not apply Article 54, Article 55 of the Juvenile Act to the defendant.

In addition, in comparison with the main sentence of the judgment subject to an extraordinary appeal and the main sentence of the original judgment in the case of the original judgment, a fine of KRW 180,00 from KRW 126,00,00, which is one of the main sentence, shall be reduced from KRW 180,00,00, and instead an additional sentence, a new object equivalent to KRW 89,583,00,00, which is the market price, shall be confiscated. This cannot be viewed as a whole as a sentence heavier than that of the judgment subject to an extraordinary appeal, so it is obvious that it cannot be viewed as a whole

For these reasons, all arguments are merely independent opinions, and they cannot be viewed as reasons under Article 432 of the Military Court Act, so it is groundless.

It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

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