1. Article 266 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “In the event a public prosecution is instituted, the court shall serve without delay a copy of the indictment on the defendant or his defense counsel: Provided, That the service shall be made not later than five days prior to the date of the first public trial.” Thus, if the first public trial is conducted without serving the defendant or his defense counsel with a copy of the indictment, it constitutes a violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes

In such a case, if the defendant was given an opportunity to sufficiently state the facts charged in the court of first instance without raising an objection, there is no illegality affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do3272, Mar. 10, 1992). If the first instance court summonss the defendant by means of service by public notice and the first instance proceedings were conducted while the defendant did not appear in the court on the trial date, the acts of litigation conducted in such unlawful proceedings do not have any effect. In such a case, the appellate court shall serve the defendant or his defense counsel with a copy of indictment and render new procedural acts through legitimate procedures, and then render a judgment again

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do14744, Jan. 12, 2012). 2. The record reveals the following facts.

The first instance court decided to summon the defendant as the defendant was not served with a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons of the trial date, etc., by service of public notice, and accordingly, sentenced the first instance court to the effect that the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year without attendance of the defendant, after serving the writ of summons of the trial date two times or more.