A. According to the records, Defendant A (Submission of the Reasons for Appeal) filed an appeal against the lower judgment on September 8, 2017. On October 10, 2017, Defendant A served the notice of receipt of the records of trial and the notice of appointment of counsel on the national ship on October 10, 2017, and received by Defendant A’s wife on October 11, 2017. Defendant A requested the appointment of a national defense counsel on October 12, 2017. The decision of dismissal of appointment of a national defense counsel on October 16, 2017 was served on Defendant A’s residence and received by the said M. thereafter, Defendant A did not ex officio examine the reasons for appeal and the record of the appeal submitted by Defendant A on October 16, 2017.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a decision to dismiss an appeal by a defendant A shall be made, but as long as a judgment is rendered on the appeal by a defendant B, a separate decision to dismiss an appeal shall not be made, and a decision shall be rendered (in such cases, it is not illegal even if the appeal is dismissed by a judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 69Do143, May 27, 1969). (b) In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as stated in Article 361-4(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant B of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate acts, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s appeal

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides for the relevant legal doctrine.