(a)the right to request a re-trial under Article 175 of the Amendment of the Decree on Special Measures against the Punishment of Crimes under Emergency and to recognize whether the case constitutes a violation of the Decree on Emergency Measures;

B. As to the assertion that the case constitutes a violation of emergency measure order and whether there is a ground for appeal as an attorney

(a) If a request for a re-adjudication under Article 175 of the Amendment of the Decree on Special Measures against the Punishment of Crimes under Emergency is made, the recognition of whether the case is not a violation of the Decree on Emergency Measures, i.e., whether the facts constituting an offense of prosecution have been carried out due to an emergency, belongs to the jurisdiction of the competent court (in the case of an appeal), which is ultimately subject to the jurisdiction of the competent court (in the case of an appeal), shall belong to

B. It shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, as a defense counsel's admission to the trial brought about the defendant's argument that it would be subject to the procedure of the Emergency Measure Decree, which is a single-trial system, not subject to the procedure of the third trial.

Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 of the Decree on Special Measures for the Punishment of Crimes under Emergency, Article 9 of the Act on Special Measures for the Punishment of Crimes under Emergency, Article 452 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Appellant

The maximum net text

The main body is dismissed.

The appellate court's judgment in order to dismiss the defendant's second instance court's request for a second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second court's second appeal.

If a request for re-adjudication is made under Article 175 of the Act on Special Measures for the Punishment of Crimes under Impact Emergency (hereinafter referred to as the "Emergency Decree"), it is reasonable to interpret that the case belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court (in the case of appeal), which received the request for re-adjudication, because it is not a violation of the Emergency Decree, i.e., whether the case belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court (in the case of appeal), and it is reasonable to interpret that the case falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court (in the case of appeal). In this case, it is recognized that the court below, which received the request for re-adjudication of the defendant, did not take place against the emergency situation, and it is not reasonable and unlawful in light of the nature of the case, and the defendant's request for re-adjudication is not a legitimate one-way procedure, and it is not a question about the legitimacy of the defendant's request for a re-adjudication after the date of the first instance trial on the date of the first instance trial and the first instance trial on the date of the appeal.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)