1. Criteria for determining the jurisdiction of things in a criminal case;

2. The standard time to judge whether a public prosecution is lawful;

1. The criteria for determining the jurisdiction of a criminal case shall be set up generally and uniformly according to the statutory penalty prescribed by the penal law applicable to the case in question, and it is reasonable to view that there is no relationship with the content of the sentences sought by the prosecutor with respect to a specific case.

2. The legitimacy of a public prosecution should be determined at the time of the public prosecution, and it should not be cured because there were changes in circumstances such as the amendment of laws after the public prosecution.

Court Organization Act Article 29(1)3 of the Court Organization Act, Article 13(1) and (4) of the Prosecutors' Office Act, Article 84(3) of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 44-2 of the former Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 84(3) of the former Road Transport Vehicles Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court (81 Gohap36)

The appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by a prosecutor is that the case of summary order is subject to punishment as a fine. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the case of summary order belongs to the jurisdiction of a single judge of a district court under the interpretation of Article 29 (1) 3 of the Court Organization Act. Meanwhile, the prosecutor acting as judicial trainee has the authority to institute a public prosecution for a criminal case belonging to the jurisdiction of a single judge of a district court under Article 13 (1) and (4) of the Public Prosecutor's Office Act. Thus, if the non-indicted who is judicial trainee filed a public prosecution against the defendant on October 17, 1980 as the qualification of acting for the public prosecutor, the institution of public prosecution is lawful. Since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to a criminal case under which one year or more of the statutory penalties under Article 84 (3) of the former Road Transport Vehicles Act, which applies to the defendant at the time of the institution of public prosecution, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by a collegiate panel of the district court, it should be deemed that the above provision has been modified for a case of a fine not more than 130.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the charges of prosecution against the defendant are lawful. Since the defendant is not subject to prosecution against the law of 3 years from Sep. 20, 1979 to Aug. 5, 1980, the charges of prosecution against the law of 1977 are not subject to prosecution against the law of 4 years, the court below's ruling on the violation of the law of 194 (3) and the law of 194 (2) as an exception to the law of 194 (2) of the former Act, which provides that the court below's ruling on the violation of the law of 194 (3) of the Act of the Organization of Public Officials and the law of 194 (hereinafter referred to as "mutual omission) shall not be subject to punishment against the law of 3 years, and thus, the court below's ruling on the violation of the law of 194 (1) of the former Act shall not be subject to punishment against the law of 194 (3) of the Act of the Organization of Public Prosecution or 201) of the former Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge final (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-dae et al.