In the event a final judgment has been already rendered and such judgment is discarded, whether the motion for challenge is unlawful

Where an application for challenge against a judge has been filed, the adjudication is not included in the proceedings to be suspended pursuant to Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and if the final judgment has been already rendered and it is discarded, a motion for challenge to exclude the competent court from the trial of the case is illegal as the benefit to be tried is lost due to the extinction of its purpose.

Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 87Mo184 Dated May 28, 1987 (Gong1987,142) 90Du21 Dated June 14, 1991 (Gong1991,1938) dated September 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2932)

Applicant

Seoul High Court Order 94 seconds264 Dated November 8, 1994

The reappeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds of re-appeal is that the appellate court in charge of the defendant's criminal case against the re-appellant concluded the hearing without adopting the evidence requested by the re-appellant and without allowing the perusal of documents in the lawsuit. This constitutes a case where there is a concern that judges constituting the trial court may make unfair judgments, and thus, the order of the court below which dismissed the judge's motion for challenge against the re-appellant in this case where the applicant filed the motion for challenge even though the court in charge decided by the

However, even according to the Re-Appellant's argument itself, the appeal court against the above case was already concluded by the final judgment, and in case of a motion for challenge against a judge, the judgment is not included in the proceedings to be suspended by Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 87Mo10 delivered on May 28, 1987), and if the final judgment has already been delivered and the judgment has been discarded, the motion for challenge to exclude the court in charge from the trial of the case would lose the benefit of the trial due to the extinction of its purpose and be improper (see Supreme Court Decision 93Ma1184 delivered on September 27, 1993). Therefore, it is reasonable that the court below's rejection of the motion for challenge by the Re-Appellant is justified in its conclusion.

Therefore, the reappeal of this case is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)