MILITARY COURT ACT

영문법령 불러오는 중…

MILITARY COURT ACT — 법갈피

Article 36(Military Prosecutors’ Offices) #

(1) The military prosecutors’ offices shall take charge of prosecution duties.

(2) The military prosecutors’ offices shall be composed of high prosecutors’ offices and general prosecutors’ offices, and high prosecutors’ office shall be established in the Ministry of National Defense and the headquarters of each military branch, and general prosecutors’ offices shall be established in the units in which general military courts are established and in the units under the command of general-grade officers in the organizational chart: Provided, That if necessary, the Minister of National Defense may postpone the establishment of the Military Prosecutors’ Office. <Amended by Act No. 14609, Mar. 21, 2017>

(3) There shall be established the Ministry of National Defense Prosecutors’ Office which is attached to the Ministry of National Defense, and its head shall be appointed by the Minister of National Defense from among field-grade or general-grade officers who are military judge advocates. <Newly Inserted by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016; Act No. 14609, Mar. 21, 2017>

(4) The Ministry of National Defense Prosecutors’ Office shall exercise overall control over affairs (including the relevant crime intelligence affairs) concerning the high prosecutors’ offices and general prosecutors’ offices established in the Ministry of National Defense. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(5) High prosecutors’ offices shall have jurisdiction over appeals and complaints against cases subject to the jurisdiction of general prosecutors’ offices attached to each unit falling under the command of the relevant high prosecutors’ offices, and other cases subject to the authority of the relevant high prosecutors’ offices pursuant to any Act: Provided, That the high prosecutors’ office of the headquarters of each military branch may, if necessary, entrust part of their authority to the high prosecutors’ office of the Ministry of National Defense.

(6) The jurisdiction of general prosecutors’ offices shall correspond to the jurisdiction of the counterpart general military courts: Provided, That the jurisdiction of the general prosecutors’ office established in a unit in which a military court is not established shall cover the following:

1. Cases where an immediate subordinate of the head of a unit in which a military prosecutors’ office is established is a suspect, or a person under the direct supervision of such head is a suspect;

2. Cases where a person attached to any such small unit belonging to a unit in which a prosecutors’ office is established, as is located in an operational area, military area or guard area of such unit is a suspect, or a person under the supervision of such head is a suspect;

3. Cases where a person present in an operational area, military area, or guard area of a unit in which a prosecutors’ office is established is a suspect, or a person falling under Article 1 of the Military Criminal Act who has committed a crime in such area is a suspect.

(7) Notwithstanding paragraph (6), where the fairness of investigation is deemed difficult to be maintained due to the nature of the crime, the status of the suspect, the current conditions of the relevant unit, the state of investigation, and other circumstances, the heads of the high prosecutors’ offices of the headquarters of military branches may transfer the jurisdiction over the relevant case to the general prosecutors’ office of a higher unit of such relevant unit ex officio or upon the application of a military prosecutor of the general prosecutors’ office of the relevant unit. <Newly Inserted by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(8) Notwithstanding paragraphs (6) and (7), the general prosecutors’ offices of both the Ministry of National Defense and the headquarters of military branches may exercise jurisdiction over cases where a general-grade officer is a suspect and other important cases. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016; Act No. 14609, Mar. 21, 2017>

(9) Matters necessary for the organization, operation, etc. of the Prosecutors’ Office of the Ministry of National Defense shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. <Newly Inserted by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 93-2(Perusal or Duplication of Records of Finalization of Trial) #

(1) For the purpose of remedy against infringement of rights, academic research or public benefit, any person may file an application for the perusal or duplication of court records of a case of which proceedings have been finalized with the Military Prosecutors’ Office that stores such court records.

(2) In any of the following cases, the military prosecutor may restrict perusal or duplication of all or part of court records: Provided, That this shall not apply where it is deemed that a party to the litigation or a third party has justifiable reasons for perusal or duplication: <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

1. Where hearings have not been open to the public;

2. Where the disclosure of court records is likely to seriously harm national security, public morals, maintenance of public order or public welfare;

3. Where the disclosure of court records is likely to seriously defame a party to the case, inflict harm on such party’s privacy, or the security of life or body of such party, or impair the peace of such party’s life;

4. Where the disclosure of court records is likely to facilitate the destruction of evidence or escape of a person who is complicit in the case, or to have significant influence on the trial of the case;

5. Where the disclosure of court records is likely to seriously obstruct the reformation or rehabilitation of the defendant;

6. Where the disclosure of court records is likely to seriously infringe on the trade secret (referring to the trade secret prescribed in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act) of a party to the case;

7. Where the relevant party to the case does not consent to the disclosure of court records.

(3) Where a military prosecutor places a restriction on perusal or duplication of court record pursuant to paragraph (2), he/she shall notify the applicant of such restriction, clearly stating reasons therefor. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(4) If the military prosecutor recognizes it necessary for the preservation of court records, he/she may allow perusal or duplication of the certified copy of court records: Provided, That where perusal or duplication of the original copy is necessity, this shall not apply. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(5) A person who perused or duplicated court records shall not perform the following acts using the matters that he/she has learned in the course of perusal or duplication:

1. Harming public order or public morals;

2. Obstructing the reformation or rehabilitation of the defendant;

3. Defaming a party to the case or impairing the peace of life thereof.

(6) If a person who files an application for the perusal or duplication of court records pursuant to paragraph (1) is dissatisfied with the disposition of the military prosecutor concerning perusal or duplication, he/she may file an application for the revocation or alteration of such disposition with the military court corresponding to the Military Prosecutors’ Office keeping such records. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(7) Articles 467 and 468 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the application for objection prescribed in paragraph (6).

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 93-3(Perusal and Copy of Judgment Document on Confirmation, etc.) #

(1) Anyone may peruse and copy (including perusal and copy by electronic ways, such as internet or other computing information processing systems; hereinafter the same shall apply in this Article) judgment documents, etc. in military courts that keep judgment documents in which the judgement of a case is final, or copies thereof, evidence lists or copies thereof, or documents or names of objects that are submitted to a military court by prosecutors, defendants, or attorneys, or information corresponding thereto (hereinafter referred to as "judgment documents, etc."): Provided, That the foregoing may be restricted where a military court falls under any of the following subparagraphs: <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

1. Where an inquiry is conducted confidentially;

2. Where a case is on juveniles under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act;

3. Where the disclosure of judgment documents, etc. is likely to allow persons in accomplice relations, etc. to destroy any evidence or flee readily, or to substantially influence the trials of related cases;

4. Where it is obvious that the disclosure of judgment documents, etc. is likely to harm the national security;

5. Where a person involved in the litigation applies for the restrictions on disclosing judgment documents, etc., which falls under any of the followings:

(a) Where the disclosure of judgment documents, etc. is likely to considerably harm the honor, privacy, security of life and body, and peace of everyday life of a person involved in a case;

(b) Where the disclosure of judgment documents, etc. is likely to considerably infringe trade secrets (referring to trade secret under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act) of a person involved in a case.

(2) Despite the proviso to paragraph (1), a person involved in the litigation or an interested third person who has justifiable grounds for perusal and copy of judgment documents, etc. may apply for perusal and copy of such documents to a clerical official of a military court who is keeping the judgment documents, etc.

(3) Where a person who has applied for perusal and copy of judgment documents, etc. pursuant to paragraph (2) is dissatisfied with the clerical official's disposition concerning perusal and copy, he/she may apply for the revocation or alteration of such disposition, in writing, to a military court that keeps judgment documents, etc.

(4) Articles 466 and 467 shall apply mutatis mutandis to application for dissatisfaction under paragraph (3).

(5) A clerical official shall take protective measures prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations in order to prevent personal information such as names indicated in judgment documents, etc. from being disclosed before perusal and copy under paragraphs (1) and (2).

(6) A clerical official who has taken protective measures pursuant to paragraph (5) shall not assume any civil or criminal responsibility for perusal and copy under paragraphs (1) and (2), unless he/she acts willfully or by gross negligence.

(7) The methods of, and procedures for, perusal and copy of judgment documents, etc., application of a person involved in the litigation for the restriction on disclosing information, protective measures on personal information, and other necessary measures shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations.

[This Article Newly Inserted by Act No. 12199, Jan. 7, 2014]

Article 193(Administrative Fines, etc. for Non-attendance of Witness) #

(1) If a witness on whom a subpoena has been served fails to appear without justifiable grounds, the military court may, by ruling, order the witness to bear the litigation expenses incurred by his/her absence, and impose an administrative fine not exceeding five million won. The same shall apply to cases which have the same effect as the service of a subpoena pursuant to Article 108 (2) and (6), which applies mutatis mutandis as prescribed in Article 192 (2).

(2) If a witness who has stood trial over an administrative fine prescribed in paragraph (1) fails to appear without justifiable grounds, the military court may rule to punish him/her by confinement for not more than seven days.

(3) The military court shall summon a witness on the court date set for the trial of confinement, and place such witness on trial as to whether any justifiable ground exists in cases under paragraph (2).

(4) The confinement of a witness shall be executed by an assistant military judicial police officer, prison officer, courtroom soldiers, court clerks, etc. by putting such witness in the military prison or military pretrial detention facility under the orders of the presiding judge of the military court that has tried the case.

(5) Where a witness is held in custody in a confinement facility prescribed in paragraph (4) after having stood trial for confinement, the head of such confinement facility shall immediately notify the military court of such fact.

(6) When the military court is notified pursuant to paragraph (5), it shall hold a hearing for the examination of a witness without delay.

(7) Where a witness gives testimony while he/she is under confinement after having stood trial for confinement, the military court shall immediately revoke the confinement ruling and issue an order to release the witness.

(8) An immediate appeal may be filed against rulings prescribed in paragraphs (1) and (2). In such cases, Article 459 shall not apply.

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 232-2(Arrest under Warrant) #

(1) When reasonable grounds to suspect that a suspect has committed an offense exist, and that such person refuses or is likely to refuse a request for appearance prescribed in Article 232 without justifiable grounds, a military prosecutor may request an arrest warrant to the military judge of the competent general military court, have an arrest warrant issued, and arrest such suspect; a military judicial police officer may file an application with a military prosecutor and arrest such suspect after having an arrest warrant issued by the military judge of the competent military court at the request of such military prosecutor: Provided, That in cases falling under a maximum fine not exceeding 500,000 won, misdemeanor imprisonment or minor fine, arrest shall be made only where the suspect has no fixed abode, or the suspect has failed to comply with a request for appearance prescribed in Article 232 without justifiable reasons. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(2) If the military judge of a general military court who has received a request prescribed in paragraph (1) recognizes it reasonable, he/she shall issue an arrest warrant: Provided, That where needs for arrest are not clearly recognized, this shall not apply.

(3) If the military judge of a general military court who has received a request prescribed in paragraph (1) does not issue an arrest warrant, he/she shall write the purport and reason thereof in the request form, put signature and seal thereon, and deliver it to the military prosecutor who has requested. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(4) Where an arrest warrant has been requested or has been issued in the past for the suspect over the same facts constituting an offense when a request prescribed in paragraph (1) is made, the military prosecutor shall write the gist of requesting again for an arrest warrant and reasons therefor. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(5) If an arrested suspect is to be detained, a detention warrant shall be requested pursuant to Article 238 within 48 hours from arrest, and if a detention warrant is not requested within such time limit, the suspect shall be immediately released.

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 232-4(Emergency Arrest and Period of Request for Warrant) #

(1) Where a military prosecutor or military judicial police officer arrests a suspect pursuant to Article 232-3 and intends to detain the suspect, the military prosecutor shall, without delay, request a detention warrant to the military judge of the competent general military court; the military judicial police officer shall file an application with the military prosecutor and the military prosecutor shall request a detention warrant to the military judge of the competent military court. In such cases, a detention warrant shall be requested within 48 hours from the arrest of suspect with an emergency arrest report under Article 232-3 (3) attached. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(2) When a detention warrant is not requested pursuant to paragraph (1) or is not issued, such suspect shall be released immediately.

(3) The person who has been released pursuant to paragraph (2) shall not be arrested for the same offense without a warrant.

(4) Where a military prosecutor releases a suspect without requesting a detention warrant under paragraph (1), he/she shall notify the court of the following matters in writing within 30 days from the date of release. In such cases, a copy of the emergency arrest report shall be attached: <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

1. Personal information of the person released after emergency arrest;

2. Time, date and place of emergency arrest and detailed reasons therefor;

3. Time, date and place of release and reasons therefor;

4. Name of the military prosecutor or military judicial police officer who has conducted the emergency arrest and release of suspect.

(5) The person who is released after emergency arrest, defense attorney, legal representative, spouse, lineal relatives or siblings thereof may peruse or duplicate the notice and relevant documents.

(6) Where the military judicial police officer does not request detention warrant of a suspect and releases such suspect, he/she shall immediately notify such fact to the military prosecutor. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 238(Detention) #

(1) Where reasons are sufficient to suspect that a suspect has committed an offense and causes falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 110 (1) exist, the military prosecutor may request a detention warrant to the military judge of the competent general military court and obtain a detention warrant and detain such suspect; the military judicial police officer may file an application for detention warrant to the military prosecutor, and obtains a detention warrant from the military judge of the competent general military court at the request of the military prosecutor and detain such suspect: Provided, That in cases of offenses falling under a maximum fine not exceeding 500,000 won, misdemeanor imprisonment or minor fine, arrest shall be made only where the suspect has no fixed abode. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(2) When a detention warrant is requested, data justifying the necessity of detention shall be submitted.

(3) When the military prosecutor makes a request for detention warrant, he/she shall obtain approval from the head of a unit under which the relevant Military Prosecutors’ Office is established. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(4) The military judge of the competent general military court on the receipt of a request under paragraph (1) shall promptly determine whether to issue a detention warrant.

(5) If the military judge of the competent general military court on the receipt of a request under paragraph (1) recognizes that such request is reasonable, he/she shall issue a detention warrant. If he/she does not issue a detention warrant, he/she shall state the gist and reasons therefor in the request, and put his/her signature and seal thereon and return the request to the military prosecutor who has made the request. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(6) Where an arrest warrant has been requested or has been issued in the past for the suspect over the same facts constituting an offense when a request prescribed in paragraph (1) is made, the military prosecutor shall write the gist of a further request for arrest warrant and reasons therefor. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 238-2(Request for Detention Warrant and Interrogation of Suspects) #

(1) The military judge of a general military court on the receipt of a request for detention warrant for an arrested suspect pursuant to Article 232-2, 232-3 or 248 shall interrogate such suspect without delay. In such cases, he/she shall conduct interrogation by no later than the following day of the date a request for detention warrant was made.

(2) The military judge of a general military court on the receipt of a request for detention warrant for a suspect other than the one under paragraph (1) shall issue a detention warrant for compulsory appearance, and compel such suspect to appear to interrogate where it is reasonable to suspect that such suspect has committed an offense: Provided, That where interrogation is impossible, such as that the suspect has fled, etc., this shall not apply.

(3) The military judge of a general military court shall notify the military prosecutor, suspect and defense attorney of the time and place of hearing for examination, immediately in cases under paragraph (1) and immediately after taking the suspect into custody in cases under paragraph (2). In such cases, the military prosecutor shall have the suspect attend the hearing on interrogation day if the suspect is under arrest. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(4) The military prosecutor and the defense attorney may attend the hearing on the interrogation day and make a statement. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(5) When the military judge of a general military court conducts interrogation pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), he/she shall take measures necessary for the separate interrogation of accomplices and other measures necessary for the protection of confidential information of investigation.

(6) The clerk shall prepare a protocol of the gist, etc. of interrogation where a suspect is interrogated pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2).

(7) Where a suspect is interrogated, the period from the date the military court received a request for detention warrant, documents relating to investigation and articles of evidence to the date the military court issues a detention warrant and return such documents and articles of evidence shall not be counted in the detention period, in the application of Articles 239 and 240.

(8) If a suspect to be interrogated has no defense attorney, the military court shall appoint a defense attorney ex officio. In such cases, the appointment of defense attorney shall remain effective until the trial in the court of first instance except for the cases where the request for detention warrant for suspect is dismissed and becomes invalid.

(9) When no defense attorney exists because the ruling of appointment of a defense attorney has been cancelled due to circumstances of the appointed defense attorney or other reasons, the military court may reappoint a defense attorney ex officio.

(10) Articles 111, 111-2, 114, 119 through 121, 123 (1), (3) and (4), 124, 125, 127 (1), 129 through 131 and 232-5 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the compulsory appearance under paragraph (2), and Articles 82, 85, 87, 87-3 and 326-2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the interrogation of suspects.

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 252(Review of Legality of Arrest and Detention) #

(1) A suspect who has been arrested or is under detention, his/her defense attorney, legal representative, spouse, lineal relatives, siblings, live-in partner or employer may request the competent general military court for review on the legality of arrest or detention.

(2) The military prosecutor or military judicial police officer who has arrested or detained a suspect shall inform such suspect who has been arrested or is under detention and a person designated by such suspect from among the persons prescribed in paragraph (1) of the fact that he/she can request review on legality under paragraph (1). <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(3) When a request under paragraph (1) falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the military court may dismiss the request by ruling without holding a interrogatory hearing under paragraph (4):

1. When a person other than the person authorized to request makes a request, or a request for review is made once again on the issuance of the same arrest warrant or detention warrant;

2. When it is obvious that the accomplices or co-suspects makes successive requests for review with an intention to interfere with investigation.

(4) The military court upon the receipt of a request under paragraph (1) shall interrogate the arrested or detained suspect, examine documents and articles of evidence concerning investigation within 48 hours from the time such request was received, and dismiss such request by ruling if it recognizes that such request is groundless or order to release the arrested or detained suspect by ruling if it recognizes that such request has good reasons. The same shall apply where a public prosecution has been instituted against such suspect after a request for review was filed.

(5) The military court may order to release the detained suspect (including persons against whom a public prosecution has been instituted after a request for review was made) pursuant to paragraph (4) by ruling on condition that deposit money enough to guarantee the appearance of such suspect is paid: Provided, That this shall not apply to any of the following cases:

1. Where sufficient reasons exist to believe that such defendant is likely to destroy the evidence of crime;

2. Where sufficient reasons exist to believe that such defendant inflicts or is likely to inflict harm to the life, body or property of the victim, a person recognized as having knowledge of facts necessary for the trial of the relevant case, or relatives thereof.

(6) Where release prescribed in paragraph (5) is determined, restrictions on dwelling, duty to be present at the time, on the date and at the place designated by the military court or military prosecutor, and other appropriate conditions may be attached thereto. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(7) Articles 138 and 140 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the release on condition that deposit money is paid pursuant to paragraph (5).

(8) No appeal shall be lodged against rulings under paragraphs (3) and (4).

(9) The military prosecutor, defense attorney or requester may present himself/herself on the date of interrogation prescribed in paragraph (4) and state his/her opinions. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(10) Article 62 shall apply mutatis mutandis where the arrested or detained suspect has no defense attorney.

(11) Where the military court interrogates suspects pursuant to paragraph (4), it shall take appropriate measures to protect the confidentiality of investigation including separate interrogation of accomplices.

(12) The military judge who has issued an arrest warrant or detention warrant shall not be allowed to be involved in the interrogation, examination and ruling prescribed in paragraphs (4) through (6): Provided, That where no military judge to interrogate, examine or render a ruling exists except for the military judge who has issued an arrest warrant or detention warrant, this shall not apply.

(13) The period from the date the military court receives investigation-related documents and articles of evidence to the date such documents and materials are returned to the Military Prosecutors’ Office after rendering a ruling shall not be included in the time limit when Articles 232-2 (5) (including cases where such provisions apply mutatis mutandis as prescribed in Article 250) and 232-4 (1) are applied, and shall not be included in the period of detention when Articles 239, 240 and 242 are applied.

(14) Article 238-2 (6) shall apply mutatis mutandis where a suspect is interrogated pursuant to paragraph (4).

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 304(Trial and Ruling) #

(1) When the High Military Court receives an application for adjudication, it shall notify the suspect of such fact within ten days.

(2) The High Military Court shall render a ruling according to the following classifications, corresponding to the procedures for appeal within three months from the date such application for adjudication was received. In such cases, the High Military Court may examine evidence, if necessary:

1. When such application lacks legal form or grounds: The High Military Court shall dismiss such application;

2. When such application is reasonable: The High Military Court shall render a ruling to institute a public prosecution on the relevant case.

(3) The trial of a case of application for adjudication shall not be open to the public unless any special circumstance exists.

(4) An immediate complaint under Article 464 may be raised against a ruling under subparagraph 1 of paragraph (2), and no objection shall be raised against a ruling under subparagraph 2 of paragraph (2). A case for which a ruling under paragraph (2) 1 becomes final and decisive may not be subject to public prosecution, except where any other important evidence is discovered later. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(5) When the High Military Court has rendered a ruling prescribed in paragraph (2), it shall immediately send the original copy thereof to the applicant for adjudication, the suspect and the head of a unit to which the relevant military prosecutor is attached. In such cases, when the High Military Court has rendered a ruling prescribed in paragraph (2) 2, it shall also send the records of the case to the head of a unit to which the relevant military prosecutor is attached. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(6) The head of a unit to which the relevant military prosecutor is attached who has received a ruling for adjudication prescribed in paragraph (2) 2 shall designate a military prosecutor to be in charge of such case without delay, and the designated military prosecutor shall institute a public prosecution. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 309-3(Perusal or Duplication of Documents, etc. Kept by Military Prosecutors after Public Prosecution Is Instituted) #

(1) The defendant or defense attorney may file an application with the military prosecutor for the perusal or duplication of the list of documents or objects (hereinafter referred to as "documents, etc.") concerning the case for which a public prosecution has been instituted, and for the perusal or duplication of the following documents, etc. that are likely to affect the admission of the facts constituting an offense subject to public prosecution or the sentencing, or for the issuance of papers: Provided, That where the defendant has a defense attorney, the defendant may file an application for perusal only: <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

1. Documents that the military prosecutor is going to request as evidence;

2. Papers stating the names of persons that the military prosecutor is going to request as a witness, relationship with the case, etc., or documents, etc. describing the statements made by such persons before the court date;

3. Documents relating to the probative power of the papers, documents, etc. prescribed in subparagraph 1 or 2;

4. Documents, etc. (including records of related criminal trials for which judgment is finally closed, records of disposition not to institute a public prosecution, etc.) relating to arguments made by defendant or defense attorney on matters of law and facts.

(2) If the military prosecutor recognizes that there are reasonable grounds such as national security, necessity to protect witnesses, concern of destruction of evidence, specific grounds expected to obstruct an investigation into related cases, etc., he/she may refuse perusal or duplication of documents or issuance of papers, or restrict the extent thereof. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(3) When the military prosecutor refuses the perusal or duplication of document or the issuance of papers, or restrict the extent thereof, he/she shall, without delay, notify the reason in writing. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(4) If the military prosecutor fails to notify the defendant or defense attorney pursuant to paragraph (3) within 48 hours from the time he/she received an application prescribed in paragraph (1), the defendant or defense attorney may file an application prescribed in Article 309-4 (1). <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the military prosecutor shall not be permitted to refuse the perusal or duplication of the list of documents, etc. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(6) Documents, etc. shall include drawings, photographs, audio tapes, video tapes, computer discs, and special media, which are not documents, but manufactured to store information. In such cases, the duplication of such special media shall be limited to the necessary minimum.

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 309-11(Perusal, Duplication, etc. of Documents, etc. Kept by Defendant or Defense Attorney) #

(1) If a defendant or defense attorney makes an assertion concerning a matter of law or fact in a trial or preparatory hearing, such as non-existence at the scene, insanity or mental or physical retardation, the military prosecutor may request the defendant or defense attorney to allow him/her to peruse or duplicate the following documents, etc., or to submit papers therein: <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

1. Documents, etc. that the defendant or defense attorney intends to file an application to admit as evidence;

2. Papers stating the name of the person whom the defendant or defense attorney intends to file an application as a witness, his/her relationship with the case, etc.;

3. Documents, etc. relating to the probative weight of the documents, etc. in subparagraph 1 or papers in subparagraph 2;

4. Documents, etc. relating to the assertion of the defendant or defense attorney in connection with a matter of law or fact.

(2) If the military prosecutor refuses to allow a defendant or defense attorney to peruse or duplicate documents, etc. or to issue papers, etc. prescribed in Article 309-3 (1), the defendant or defense attorney may also refuse the perusal or duplication of documents, etc. or the issuance of papers, etc. prescribed in paragraph (1): Provided, That where the military court has rendered a ruling of dismissing an application prescribed in Article 309-4 (1), this shall not apply. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(3) If the defendant or defense attorney refuses a request prescribed in paragraph (1), the military prosecutor may file an application to allow him/her to peruse or duplicate documents, etc. or to submit such papers. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(4) Article 309-4 (2) through (5) shall apply mutatis mutandis to an application prescribed in paragraph (3).

(5) Article 309-3 (6) shall apply mutatis mutandis to documents, etc. prescribed in paragraph (1).

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 365(Protocols Prepared by Military Prosecutors or Military Judicial Police Officers) #

(1) A protocol in which the military prosecutor has recorded a statement of a defendant when the defendant was still a suspect is admissible as evidence, only if it is acknowledged that it has been prepared in compliance with due process and methods, and that the contents of which are the same as the defendant’s statement judging from the statement made by the defendant on the day of preparatory hearing or court date, and that the statement recorded in the protocol was made under particularly reliable circumstances. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the defendant denies the authenticity in the formation of protocol, it is admissible as evidence, only if it is proven by a video product or any other objective means that the statement recorded in the protocol is the same as what the defendant has stated and has been made under particularly reliable circumstances.

(3) A protocol for examination of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than the military prosecutor is admissible as evidence, only if it has been prepared in compliance with due process and methods and the defendant, who was a suspect at the time, or his/her defense attorney admits its contents on the date of preparatory hearing or court date. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(4) A protocol in which a military prosecutor or military judicial police officer has recorded the statement of a person other than the defendant is admissible as evidence, only if it has been prepared in compliance with the due process and methods, and that the contents of the protocol are the same as what he stated before the military prosecutor or military judicial police officer is proven by the original stater’s statement made on the day of preparatory hearing or court date, a video product or any other objective means, and if the defendant or defense attorney had an opportunity to examine the original stater on the contents of the protocol on the date of preparatory hearing or court date: Provided, That in cases of the statement recorded in the protocol, such statement shall be admitted as evidence only if it is proven that such statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

(5) Paragraphs (1) through (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the written statement prepared by a defendant or a person other than the defendant in the investigative process.

(6) A protocol in which a military prosecutor or military judicial police officer has recorded the results of examination of evidence is admissible as evidence, if it is proven that it has been prepared in compliance with due process and methods, and the authenticity of its formation is proven by the author’s statement made on the day of preparatory hearing or court date. <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 366(Written Statements, etc.) #

(1) Besides written statements prescribed pursuant to Articles 364 and 365, written statements prepared by a defendant or a person other than the defendant or a document recording such statement (including information stored in information storage media, etc., such as characters, pictures, and videos with contents therein prepared or stated by a defendant or a person other than the defendant; the same shall apply in this Article) which has been prepared in the handwriting of the drafter or stater and bears the signature or seal of the drafter or stater may be admitted as evidence, if the authenticity of the formation is proven according to the statement of the drafter or stater made on the day of preparatory hearing or court date: Provided, That only in cases of a document in which the defendant’s statement is recorded, such document may be admitted as evidence only if the authenticity of formation is proven according to the drafter’s statement made on the day of preparatory hearing or court date and such statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances, notwithstanding the defendant’s statement made on the date of preparatory hearing or court date. <Amended by Act No. 15165, Dec. 12, 2017>

(2) Notwithstanding the main sentence of paragraph (1), where a person who has prepared a written statement denies the authenticity of its formation on the date of preparatory hearing or court date, such document may be admitted as evidence if the authenticity of the formation is proven by objective means such as digital forensics or appraisal based on findings of scientific analysis: Provided, That a statement prepared by a person other than the defendant is admissible as evidence, only if the defendant or an attorney has an opportunity to interrogate the preparator on the contents of the statement on the date of preparatory hearing or court date. <Newly Inserted by Act No. 15165, Dec. 12, 2017>

(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall also apply to documents containing the progress and results of expert evidence. <Amended by Act No. 15165, Dec. 12, 2017>

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 469(Grounds for Retrial) #

Where any of the following grounds exists, a retrial may be requested for the benefit of a person who has been pronounced guilty in the final judgment: <Amended by Act No. 13722, Jan. 6, 2016>

1. When documents and articles of evidence admitted into evidence in the original judgment has been proven forged or altered according to the finally binding judgment;

2. When testimony, expert opinion, translation or interpretation admitted into evidence in the original judgment has been proven forged or altered according to the finally binding judgment;

3. Where a person was pronounced guilty due to a false accusation, and such accusation has been proven false according to the finally binding judgment;

4. When a trial admitted into evidence in the original judgment has been altered according to the finally binding trial;

5. When unmistakable evidence has been newly found by which innocence or acquittal is to be recognized for a person who was convicted, or by which exemption from punishment or a crime less serious than that recognized by a lower court is to be recognized for a person who was sentenced to punishment;

6. When a case for which a judgment of guilty was pronounced for violation of copyright, patent right, utility model right, design right or trademark right, and an administrative decision of invalidation of such right or judgment of invalidation of such right has become a finally binding one;

7. When it is proven according to the final judgment that an offense has been committed in connection with duties by a military judicial officer or judicial officer who has participated in the original judgment, judgment in the previous trial, or examination on which such judgment is based, or by a military prosecutor, public prosecutor, military judicial police officer or judicial police officer who has participated in instituting a public prosecution or investigation on which such public prosecution is based: Provided, That where a public prosecution was instituted against the military judicial officer, judicial officer, military prosecutor, public prosecutor, military judicial police officer or judicial police officer before the original judgment has been rendered, a retrial may be requested only when the Supreme Court or military court that rendered the original judgment had not been aware of the reasons.

[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 9841, Dec. 29, 2009]

Article 1(Purpose) #

Article 2(Jurisdiction according to Status) #

Article 3(Other Jurisdictions) #

Article 3-2(Application for Adjudication concerning Dispute over Jurisdiction) #

Article 3-3(Trial of Adjudication concerning Dispute over Jurisdiction) #

Article 3-4(Submission of Opinion by Prosecutor General) #

Article 3-5(Delivery, etc. of Adjudication Documents) #

Article 3-6(Validity of Litigation before Application for Adjudication) #

Article 3-7(Disposition on Detention of Defendants) #

Article 4(Power of Supreme Court to Establish Rules) #

Article 5(Types of Military Courts) #

Article 6(Establishment of Military Courts) #

Article 7(Convening Authority of Military Courts) #

Article 8(Power of Convening Authority) #

Article 9(Matters to be Judged by Supreme Court) #

Article 10(Matters to be Judged by High Military Court) #

Article 11(Matters to be Judged by General Military Courts) #

Article 12(Jurisdiction over Areas under Martial Law) #

Article 13(Consolidation of Jurisdiction and Exception thereto) #

Article 14(Transfer of Related Cases) #

Article 15(Consolidated Trial of Related Cases) #

Article 16(Definition of Related Cases) #

Article 17(Concurrent Jurisdiction) #

Article 18(Effect of Changes in Grounds for Ruling on Jurisdiction) #

Article 19(Application for Transfer of Jurisdiction) #

Article 20(Infringement of Jurisdiction and Effect of Litigation) #

Article 21(Independence of Military Judicial Officers) #

Article 22(Composition of Military Courts) #

Article 23(Appointment and Attachment of Military Judges) #

Article 24(Appointment and Qualifications of Adjudicators) #

Article 25(Designation of Judges) #

Article 26(Judges of General Military Courts) #

Article 27(Judges of High Military Court) #

Article 27-2(Definition of "Cases Designated by the Convening Authority") #

Article 28(Ranks of Judges) #

Article 29(Changes in Status of Defendants and Ranks of Judges) #

Article 30(Appeals, etc. and Ranks of Presiding Judges) #

Article 31(Staff) #

Article 32(Clerks) #

Article 33(Courtroom Soldiers) #

Article 34(Interpreters) #

Article 35(Technicians) #

Article 36(Military Prosecutors’ Offices) #

Article 37(Duties of Military Prosecutors) #

Article 38(Direction and Supervision of Military Prosecution Duties by Minister of National Defense) #

Article 39(Direction and Supervision of Military Prosecution Duties by Chief of Staff of Each Military Branch) #

Article 40(Direction and Supervision of Military Prosecution Duties by Heads of Units in which Military Prosecutors’ Office Is Established) #

Article 41(Appointment of Military Prosecutors) #

Article 42(Performance of Military Prosecutor’s Duties by Proxy) #

Article 43(Military Judicial Police Officers) #

Article 44(Limits of Investigation of Military Judicial Police Officers) #

Article 45(Military Judicial Police Officers and Orders of Superior Officers) #

Article 46(Assistant Military Judicial Police Officers) #

Article 47(Staff and Duties of Military Prosecutors’ Office) #

Article 48(Grounds of Exclusion) #

Article 49(Grounds of Challenge and Persons Eligible therefor) #

Article 50(Time to File Motion for Challenge) #

Article 51(Jurisdiction over Motion for Challenge) #

Article 52(Dismissal and Handling of Motion for Challenge) #

Article 53(Trials on Motion for Challenge) #

Article 54(Motion for Challenge and Suspension of Litigation) #

Article 55(Dismissal of Motion for Challenge and Immediate Appeal) #

Article 56(Replacement of Judges) #

Article 57(Reasons, etc. for Abstention) #

Article 58(Exclusion, Challenge and Abstention of Clerks, etc.) #

Article 59(Persons Authorized to Appoint Defense Attorneys) #

Article 60(Qualifications for Defense Attorneys and Special Defense Attorneys) #

Article 61(Effects of Appointment of Defense Attorneys) #

Article 61-2(Representative Defense Attorney) #

Article 62(Public Defenders) #

Article 63(Interview, etc. with Defendants and Suspects) #

Article 64(Perusal or Duplication of Documents and Evidence) #

Article 65(Independent Litigation by Defense Attorneys) #

Article 66(Assistants) #

Article 67(Opening Judgment to Public) #

Article 67-2(Places of Sessions) #

Article 68(Keeping Order at Courts) #

Article 68-2(Prohibition of Video Recording) #

Article 68-3(Request for Dispatch of Military Policemen) #