[상소권회복청구기각결정에대한재항고][집15(3)형,071]
Where a detention warrant has been issued pursuant to Article 348 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to a request for recovery of the right to appeal, cases where there is an error of not including the number of days of unconvicted detention due to execution of the relevant warrant in granting permission or making a decision on rejection of the case
In a case where the right to appeal is claimed to be recovered, and the execution of the sentence is suspended, and the defendant is detained by issuing a detention warrant, the decision not to accept the request shall be rendered, and the judgment that the number of days of detention pending trial due to the execution of the detention warrant should be
Article 347 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 348 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Defendant
Gwangju High Court Decision 67No105 delivered on July 29, 1967
The original decision shall be revoked.
Claim for Recovery of Right to Appeal shall not be permitted.
After a claim for recovery of right to appeal was made, one day from among the days of detention in the original instance shall be included in the principal sentence.
In a case where the court below ex officio rendered a decision that the defendant would not accept the request for recovery of right to appeal from the defendant as the execution of punishment is suspended and the defendant was detained after issuance of a detention warrant is obvious on the records of a case where the court below made a decision that the defendant would not accept the request for recovery of right to appeal from the defendant, even though the number of days of detention detention due to the execution of the above detention warrant should be included in the principal sentence, notwithstanding the fact that the request for recovery of right to appeal is dismissed without objection, the original decision indicated in the order is unlawful,
This case is a direct trial of the appellate court because it is sufficient for the appellate court to judge the appellate court. According to the case records, it is clear that the appellate court was dismissed by the appellate court on July 20, 1967 and submitted a written waiver of the right to appeal to the original court, and it cannot be recognized that the reappeal was unable to file an appeal within the period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the appellant. Thus, the appeal for recovery of the right to appeal cannot be permitted.
Therefore, according to Articles 396, 347 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 57 of the Criminal Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.