The ringleader, Abdi Risk Shaqe, had the captain of the mother ship in this case sail to waters with frequent foreign merchant-ship traffic, and around January 13, 2011, the pirates in this case came to waters near Arabia in the northern Indian Ocean and searched for a ship to hijack. At dawn on January 15, 2011, on the high seas at the entrance to the Arabian Sea about 515 km southeast of Oman, they found the Samho Jewelry, owned by GSH1 of Norway and chartered by the victim company, while it was sailing. The defendants, together with the pirates who were killed, aimed the weapons each carried at the crew, behaving as though they would kill them, and suppressed resistance; they then made the crew put both hands on their heads, went to the Samho Jewelry's wheelhouse and kept watch, thereby seizing the Samho Jewelry, and confined the crew in its wheelhouse.

Charges: attempted maritime robbery-murder; attempted robbery-murder; maritime robbery causing injury; robbery causing injury; aggravated obstruction of the performance of official duties causing injury; attempted murder in the course of ship hijacking, etc. under the Act on the Punishment of Acts Endangering Ships; and injury in the course of ship hijacking, etc. under the same Act.

Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "territorial jurisdiction shall be determined by the place of the crime or the defendant's domicile, residence or present location." "Present location" means the place where the defendant is at the time of indictment; it is not limited to a voluntary present location and includes a present location resulting from compulsion, but not one resulting from unlawful compulsion. In a case where Somali pirates hijacked a ship already in operation for a Korean shipping company on the high seas near the Arabian Sea in the northern Indian Ocean, committed many crimes such as attempted maritime robbery-murder against Korean crew members, were arrested, forcibly transported to Korea, detained and indicted, the Republic of Korea, under Article 6 of the Korean Criminal Act and Article 105 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, among others, can arrest persons who committed piracy against Korean nationals outside Korean territory and exercise jurisdiction over them under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act. In this case, the arrest of the defendants by members of the Korean Navy constitutes an "arrest of a flagrant offender by a private person" under Article 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and even though about nine days passed in forcibly transporting the defendants to Korea after the arrest, this was unavoidable due to spatial and physical constraints. It cannot be regarded as delaying the handover or continuing the arrest without justifiable reason, so it is lawful. The defendants were detained in Korea under warrants requested and issued within 48 hours of being handed over to Korean investigative authorities, and they received the assistance of counsel in that process, so their detention is also lawful. Since the defendants' present location is in Korea, Korean courts have territorial jurisdiction under Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The common immediately superior court for consolidating cases is determined by the high court to which each first-instance court belongs, so since the Suwon High Court opened in 2019, where the high courts differ, as with cases at the Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court and the Seoul Eastern District Court, the Supreme Court designates the court that will hear the consolidated cases. If you organize, within a single case, this recent change in jurisdiction together with the victim's expression of not wanting punishment for crimes not prosecutable against the victim's will, judgments dismissing prosecution, and the doctrine of conspiratorial co-principals, you can use it right away for case-type questions on criminal procedure midterms and finals and for foundational study for the bar exam.