1. The Re-Appellant is entitled to invoke the ground for re-appeal of this case.

However, since the procedure of reappeal under Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not have any provision in the law, the provisions concerning appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis by its nature (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 82Mo24, Aug. 16, 1982). Meanwhile, according to Article 379(2) of the Act on Appeal, the grounds of appeal may not be invoked as the grounds of appeal, since it citing facts expressed in the records of trial and in the examination of evidence by the court below, it shall be clearly stated in the grounds of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do2949, Feb. 22, 1983). Thus, the reasons stated in the written appeal cannot be a legitimate grounds of reappeal

2. The Re-Appellant asserts that the order of the court below is invalid because only the name of the participating judge is written and the signature and seal is not affixed. However, according to the document asserted by the Re-Appellant is the certified copy of the order of the court below, and according to the original written decision bound by the records, the signature and seal of the participating judge are affixed. Thus, the discussion is groundless.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)