In a case where a prosecutor was indicted by applying Article 60(1)2, Article 4(1)1, Article 61(1)4(a) and Article 3 subparag. 10(a) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. of the defendant, and applied Article 61(1)4(a) and Article 3 subparag. 10(a) of the same Act to the charges of violation of the same Act, but applied for modification of a bill of amendment, such as adding statutory penalty to the applicable provisions of the same Act for a limited term of at least one year, and decided to transfer the case to a collegiate panel, the case holding that the above transfer procedure of the case is lawful in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Court Organization Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, and that the collegiate panel of the first instance court to whom the case was transferred, acquitted of marijuana among the charges, does not affect the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel.

Subparagraph 3(b) and 4 of Article 2 of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 3 subparag. 7, Article 10(a), Article 4(1)1, Article 59(1)7, Article 60(1)2, Article 61(1)4(a)3 of the Court Organization Act, Article 8(2) and Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney O Sang-hoon

Busan High Court Decision 2017No755 decided May 3, 2018

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Demanding violation of jurisdiction;

A case that constitutes death penalty or imprisonment with or without labor for an indefinite term or for a short term of not less than one year shall be judged by the collegiate panel of a district court in the first instance (Article 32(1)3 of the Court Organization Act); and where a case under the jurisdiction of a single judge is changed to a case under the jurisdiction of a collegiate panel due to changes in indictments, the court shall, by ruling, transfer such case to

A prosecutor was indicted by applying Article 60(1)2 and Article 4(1)1 of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 61(1)4(a) and Article 3 subparag. 10(a) of the Narcotics Control Act to the facts charged of the instant case, but applied for the modification of a bill of amendment to the indictment, which is the statutory penalty for a limited term of at least one year, and applied for the addition of Article 59(1)7 and Article 3 subparag. 7(a) of the Narcotics Control Act to a limited term of at least one year, and decided to transfer the instant case to a collegiate panel by a single judge of the first instance court. The transfer procedure of the instant case is lawful in accordance with relevant provisions of the Court Organization Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. Even if the collegiate panel of the first instance court, who received the instant case thereafter, acquitted the marijuana among the facts charged of the instant case, such circumstance does not affect the jurisdiction of the collegiate panel. In this case, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. The assertion of unfair sentencing

According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground of unfair sentencing. Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable

3. Conclusion

The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)