(The Number of People in a Review Discussion)
In a collegial judgment case, the reviewed decision should be determined by the prescribed number of judges as stipulated in the provisions of this Act.

(Chairman)
The presiding judge shall be the chairperson for reviewing the judgment.

(Review Discussions are not Made Public)
The review discussions of a judgment shall not be made public before the judgment is finalized.

(The Sequential Order for Comment)
At the time of a review discussion, all judges shall present their opinions. Its sequential order begins with the judge of the least seniority. In the case of equal seniority, the younger judge speaks first, and the succession ends with the presiding judge.

(The Conclusion of a Review Discussion)
The review discussion is decided by the opinion of a majority vote.
When the discussion involves a figure amount, and judges' opinions are divided into three ways or more, with none of the opinions prevailing, the votes for the opinion that has the highest figure are added into the votes for the opinion with the second highest figure, and so forth, until a majority vote is reached.
When the discussion involves criminal affairs, and judges' opinions are divided into three ways or more with none of the opinions prevailing, the votes for the opinion that is the least favorable to the defendant are added into the votes for the opinion that is the second least favorable to the defendant, and so forth, until a majority vote is reached.

(The Record and Confidentiality of the Review Discussion)
At the time of the review, judges' opinions shall be recorded in the review book and shall be kept in strict confidentiality until the judgment of the case is finalized.
Parties of the case, agents ad litem, defense attorneys, or former assistants may file a motion to view the judges' review opinions after the judgment is finalized. However, these opinions may not be copied, filmed or photocopied.