If a judge who was not involved in the hearing has participated in the judgment, the validity of such judgment.

A judge who does not participate in the trial is in violation of the oral or direct principle of trial, and the composition of the court of judgment is in violation of the law, and thus cannot escape from reversal.

Articles 41, 301, 361-5, and 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

December 28, 1961 (Article 41(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 41(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act) 4294 Form540 decided August 30, 1962 (Article 41(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act), Article 41(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 398-type 14 decided December 28, 196

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul District Court (62No133)

The case shall be remanded to the Seoul District Court in accordance with the original judgment.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are as stated in the reasons subsequent to the entry. The first point is as follows. The judges who participated in the trial of the original court is a judge, Kim Jae-man, judge Lee Jung-chul, judge Lee Jong-chul, and judge Kim Jong-tae. The decision of the court below is a judge Lee Young-chul, the number of judge Lee Young-chul, and the fact that he affixes his signature and seal along with his signature. The provisions of Articles 41 and 301 of the Criminal Procedure Act explicitly stated in this case are, without two words, declared oral and direct examination, and the judge who does not participate in the trial violates the above principles by violating the above provisions, and further, the organization of the court is in violation of the law, and therefore, the judgment of the court is reversed, and if the Supreme Court does not have any effect on the conclusion of the judgment of the court below, the decision of the court below did not have any signature and seal in this case's decision, and thus, the judge's signature and seal in this case's judgment cannot be found to have been reversed.

Therefore, even if the judgment on the above grounds of appeal is mitigated, the appeal is with merit, and thus, the appeal is sent to the court below for further proceedings consistent with Articles 390, 383 subparag. 2, 391, and 397 of the same Act.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)