[2] The case holding that in a case where the Re-Appellant, who is in the detention house, filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the appellate court served the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial record as the detention house, and the general administrator of the detention house received the notification of the receipt of the trial record

[2] The case holding that in case where the appellate court filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the person who received the notification was not the head of the detention house and the general administrator of the detention house received the notification, the service on the person who received the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the receipt of the records

Service to be made on a person arrested, detained, or detained in the detention room of a correctional institution, detention center, or national police station shall be made to the head of a correctional institution, detention center, or national police station (Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act), and a service to be made on the reduction of capital is unlawful if such service is not made to the head of a correctional institution, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Mo14, Jun. 14, 1995). Meanwhile, the notification may be made by means of oral, telephone, facsimile, electronic mail, portable telephone delivery, and other appropriate means, except as otherwise provided for in the statutes, and shall take effect upon the arrival

According to the records, the re-appellant, who is in Seoul detention center, appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance on April 4, 2017, and the court below served the notification of the receipt of the trial record as Seoul detention center and received the notification of the receipt of the trial record on April 14, 2017 by the Seoul detention center. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in light of the above facts, the court below's service with the person receiving the service record as the re-appellant is not a legitimate service, and there is no other circumstance such as the notification of the receipt of the trial record to the re-appellant. Thus, the notification of the receipt of the trial record as to the re-appellant is invalid.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a decision dismissing the Re-Appellant’s appeal on the grounds that the Re-Appellant did not submit the grounds for appeal within 20 days even after receiving the notification of receipt of the notification of receipt of the trial records on April 14, 2017, and the appeal petition does not contain any indication of the grounds for appeal and no ex officio investigation is found. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the delivery or notification to the re-appellant, thereby adversely

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)