[항소기각에대한재항고][공2000.11.1.(117),2149]
Where there is a defect in the statement of the service report, but it is proved that the service is lawfully conducted by other evidence methods (effective).
In criminal proceedings, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning service shall apply mutatis mutandis in accordance with Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a service report which is submitted to the court after preparing the reasons for service in writing by the agency which served under Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Act shall not be passed by the method of evidence as to the fact of service. However, the service report shall be interpreted as valid in the case where it is proved that the service is not invalid immediately because the service is defective in the service report on the presumption of its authenticity as an official document, and that the service is performed lawfully by other evidence methods, and the service shall be deemed null and void only in the case where other evidence methods prove that the service was performed lawfully.
Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee
Re-Appellant (Defendant)
Seoul District Court Order 2000No250 dated March 11, 2000
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
In criminal proceedings, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning service shall apply mutatis mutandis under Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act. A service report which is submitted to the court by an agency which served under Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Act prepared the reasons for service and submitted to the court for the reasons for service shall not be passed by the method of evidence as to the fact of service (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu894, Feb. 25, 1986). However, a service report shall be deemed to be null and void only in the case where the service report is defective in the service report on the presumption of its authenticity as an official document, and the service shall not immediately be deemed null and void as it is illegal and void as it is proved that the service was conducted lawfully by any other evidence method, and the service shall be deemed null and void only in the case where other evidence method proves
The notice of delivery of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the case is inconsistent with the summary for delivery of the mail notice (79-3, 79-3, 1999, 712 of the completely revised rules of delivery on April 16, 199), and the record is sufficient to dismiss the notification of delivery of the notification of the notification of the receipt of the case, and the non-indicted's seal was affixed to the non-indicted in the column stating that the non-indicted's seal was affixed to the non-indicted. In the case of supplementary service, "the method of preparation must be stated in the name and position of the receiving agent and the relation with the principal in accordance with the relation with the person's own office, employees, and the person's person's person's person's person's person's person's person's person and person's person's person's person's person's person's person and person's person's person's person's person's person and person's person's person's person's person's person's person and person's person's person's person's person's person's person's person's person.
Therefore, the decision of the court below which dismissed the appeal of this case by the defendant under Article 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to service.
The grounds of reappeal shall not be accepted.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)