[2] The case reversing the decision of dismissal of the court below on the ground that it is insufficient to view that the notice of receipt of the trial record was legally served on the re-appellant

[2] Where the court below served a written notification of the receipt of the trial record to the location of the headquarters of the re-appellant company as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, but the above company moved to another place before the above company's main office was far earlier and retired before the recipient stated in the service report was served, it cannot be concluded that the above written notification of the receipt of the trial record was lawfully delivered to the re-appellant, and thus, the court below reversed the decision of dismissal

2. According to the records, the court of first instance, at the court of first instance, served a written notification of the receipt of the trial record on the location of the headquarters and the location of the office of the re-appellant as the location of the main office of the re-appellant. The non-applicant who received the written notification of the trial record on November 9, 2001, received the written notification of the trial date on November 9, 200, and the re-appellant did not submit the written notification of the grounds for appeal. On March 13, 2002, the non-applicant asserted that the non-applicant was a person who is not related to the re-appellant, and the non-applicant did not receive the written notification of the grounds for appeal and submitted the written notification of the grounds for appeal late. However, the court below asserted that the non-applicant did not submit the written notification of the receipt of the trial record within 20 days from the date of receipt of the written notification of the grounds for appeal, and that there was no reason for ex officio investigation, and that he dismissed the appeal by decision under Article 361-3(1).

However, according to the Re-Appellant's certified copy of the registry (No. 198 pages of the trial record) and the record attached to the Re-Appellant's filing of the statement of reasons for appeal, the Re-Appellant transferred its head office from "Gangwon (No. 1 omitted) to "Gangwon (No. 2 omitted)" to "Gangwon (No. 1 omitted)" before delivering the above statement of reasons for appeal, and worked as the director of the Re-Appellant from November 8, 1999. However, although the Re-Appellant was served as the director of the company from the non-applicant's office from November 8, 199, the non-applicant who received the above notification of reasons for appeal, the "Gangwon (No. 1 omitted) who sent the above notification of reasons for appeal," still is the office of the Re-Appellant, or there is no evidence to view the non-applicant as the clerk or employee at the time of delivering the above notification of reasons for appeal. Thus, if there is any circumstance, the Re

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on whether the above "Gangwon" was the office of the Re-Appellant's branch office or other office of the Re-Appellant, and whether the non-applicant's office is another office or employee of the Re-Appellant and should have judged whether the above written notification of the receipt of the trial record could have arrived at the Re-Appellant. However, the court below's decision to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the notification of the receipt of trial record was lawfully delivered to the Re-Appellant without exception of the court below, and that the notification of the receipt of trial record was not submitted within 20 days from the date of delivery of the written notification of the receipt of trial record violates the provisions of Articles 61 (2) and 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and this constitutes a case where the litigation procedure violated the law and affected the decision (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1371, Sept. 26, 197, etc.). The grounds for reappeal

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)