Measures to be taken by the appellate court where a case under the jurisdiction of a single judge becomes a case under the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel due to changes in indictment in the appellate trial.

Even in cases where a case under the jurisdiction of a single judge becomes a case under the jurisdiction of a collegiate panel due to changes in indictment at the appellate court, the court shall transfer the case to the competent court, and the court having jurisdiction over the case under the jurisdiction of the said collegiate panel changed at the appellate court

Article 8(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 28 and 32(1)3 of the Court Organization Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Song Man-man et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 97No669 delivered on September 6, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is transferred to Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's defense counsel's ground of appeal No. 4 is examined.

According to the records, the Gwangju District Court's single judge found the defendant guilty and sentenced him/her to the charges under the Control of Illegal Check Act, habitual fraud, and Article 3 of the Public Document and sentenced him/her to the charges, and the defendant's appeal against the defendant is pending in the appellate court. The court below held that the prosecutor added the charges of habitual fraud and allowed the application for modification of the indictment to add the name of the crime to Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes from habitual fraud, and completed the first instance judgment of the above single judge ex officio, and reversed the first instance judgment of the above single judge and sentenced him/her guilty and sentenced him/her to all the charges. However, according to Article 32 (1) 2 of the Court Organization Act, the statutory punishment of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is limited to imprisonment with or without labor for not less than three years, and Article 32 (1) 3 of the Court Organization Act provides that the collegiate panel of the district court or its branch of the court shall judge exercise its jurisdiction under Article 8 (2).

In full view of the above relevant provisions, even in cases where the case under the jurisdiction of a single judge becomes a case under the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel due to changes in indictment in the appellate court, the court should transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction, and the court having jurisdiction over the case under the jurisdiction of the said collegiate panel changed in the appellate court shall be deemed to be a high court. Therefore, even though the court below allowed the above application for changes in indictment after its ruling, it should have transferred the case to the Gwangju High Court which is the legal cause under the jurisdiction, it shall be deemed that the court erred in its judgment

In addition, this mistake is a violation of the law of the litigation procedure, and it is obvious that it has influenced the judgment in light of the legislative purpose of the jurisdiction system and the importance of its illegality.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Articles 391 and 394 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the case is transferred to the Gwangju High Court with jurisdiction. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)