[상소권회복청구기각결정에대한재항고][집34(3)형,561;공1986.11.1.(787),1427]
Appropriateness of a claim for recovery of a right of appeal made on the ground that an employee in charge of a prison did not provide convenience under Article 177 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.
The claim for recovery of the right of appeal is determined solely by the person entitled to appeal according to his own will, and even if the employee in charge of prisons has not made a request for recovery of his right of appeal against the re-appellant, even though he did not make a request for convenience under Article 177 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the above reason cannot be a ground for the request for recovery of right of appeal.
Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 177 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure
Re-appellant
Seoul Criminal Court Order 86Ro14 dated September 2, 1986
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, even if following the appellant's assertion, the court below held that even if he had known that there was a judgment of this case, which had been detained in the Ansan prison, on August 16, 1985, at the time limit for appeal, the appeal filed a claim for recovery of the right of appeal of this case for more than a considerable period of time should be filed on June 19, 1986, is unlawful and the appellant did not know the law, and the conclusion is not different.
On the ground of Article 177 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the defendant's employee in prison cannot make a claim for recovery of his right of appeal of this case against the re-appellant, and did not provide convenience under the above rule. However, the claim for recovery of right of appeal of this case is decided whether the person entitled to appeal should make it according to his own will, and the above provision merely provides convenience to the defendant who intends to recover right of appeal of this case, and there is no explanation as to the claim for recovery of right of appeal of this case. Ultimately, the order of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.
The issue is groundless.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)