Whether signatures and seals of trial examiners, etc. participating in public trial are necessary in the protocol of the public trial of the High Military Court; and

If the presiding judge, chief certified judicial scrivener and court clerks who have participated in the public trial affix their signatures and seals, the protocol of public trial of the High Military Court shall be valid without the signatures and seals of other certified judicial scriveners.

Articles 87, 32, and 87 of the Martial Law Meeting Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Park Jong-chul

The Army, High Military Court Decision 78 High Military Air Port512 delivered on September 12, 1978

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal No. 1.

According to the records, it is not difficult for the defendant to look back with his work for 8 days until he was arrested at around 23:00 of May 12 of the same year, although he completed a regular leave from April 20, 1978 to May 4 of the same year, and even though he was to return to him, he did not return to him. In the same purport, the court below is just and there is no error that the court below maintained the facts of the first instance court's ruling that the defendant left a military unit for 8 days, and there is no error of finding a wrong fact such as the theory of litigation.

The issue is groundless.

We examine the second ground for appeal.

It is essential to judge whether the grounds for appeal is the grounds for appeal or not, and if it is evident that the judge of the original court who participated in the case in question has no grounds for appeal, it cannot be caused by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment without oral argument, even though it was revealed that there is no grounds for appeal after the snow.

Therefore, there is no question that the judgment of the court below without pleading is a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the decision without pleading, because it is evident that there is no reason for appeal even though there is a reason for appeal.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

According to Article 32 (1) of the Military Court Act, the High Military Court Act provides that two judges and three judicial scriveners shall be judges. According to Article 32 (3) of the same Act, one judge who is a certified judicial scrivener shall be designated as the chief judicial scrivener. According to Article 87 (1) of the same Act, the protocol of public trial shall be signed and sealed by the presiding judge, the chief judicial scrivener, and the clerks who participated in the protocol of public trial. In light of all the above provisions, it is reasonable to view that the protocol of public trial of the High Military Court shall be valid if the presiding judge, the chief judicial scrivener, and the participating clerks affix their signatures and seals to the protocol of public trial of this case, and it is difficult to view that the above protocol of public trial of the High Court of Justice of this case has been signed and sealed by the chief judicial scrivener, the senior chief judicial scrivener, the middle and senior judicial scrivener, the second and senior judicial scrivener, the second and senior judicial scrivener Kim Jong-ho, and the chief judicial scrivener, the second and senior judicial scrivener of this case shall not be appointed as the chief judicial scrivener.

The ground of appeal No. 4 is examined.

According to Article 31 of the Military Court Act, the general law council provides that two or more judges and four certified judicial scrivenerss and one certified judicial scrivener shall serve as judges. According to Article 87 of the same Act, as seen earlier, if the presiding judge, certified judicial scrivener, and court clerks who participated in the general law council put their signatures and seals on and affix their seals to such protocol, such protocol of trial shall be deemed valid. According to the records, the judge who participated in the general law council of this case shall be the presiding judge, who is the Jinwon, the certified judicial scrivener, and so on, who is the judge, shall participate in the special law council of this case, and so, he shall be deemed to be valid since it is difficult for the presiding judge, the certified judicial scrivener, and the participating judicial scrivener to have affixed their signatures and seals on the protocol of trial, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the protocol of trial is valid. Therefore, there is no other signature and seal on the protocol of trial.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)