According to Article 14(1), (3), and (4) of the Procedure Act and Article 455(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, where a request for lawful formal trial is made from a defendant who has received a summary judgment upon the request from the chief of a police station, the chief of a police station’s request for summary judgment is the same procedural act as the institution of public prosecution, and thus, shall be tried by the trial procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do8503, Mar. 29, 2012).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and dismissed the public prosecution of this case on the ground that the public prosecution procedure of this case is invalid in violation of the provisions of law or it constitutes a case where the public prosecution is instituted again in violation of the provisions of law, and the public prosecution of this case is dismissed, on the ground that the public prosecutor did not send the case records and evidence to the court for the summary judgment case for which the public prosecutor requested formal trial, and the public prosecutor did not require any separate prosecution, and without sending the case records and evidence to the court for the summary judgment case for which the public prosecutor requested formal trial.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the delivery of case records after the request for formal trial against a summary judgment

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)