The case reversing the order of the court below that rejected the claim for recovery of the right of appeal in case where the defendant declared a judgment in the absence of the defendant immediately on the first day of trial, immediately after the closing of argument in the criminal trial of the first instance while the defendant was present, under the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

The case reversing the order of the court below that rejected the defendant's appeal claim on the ground that it is against Article 19 (2) of the above Enforcement Rule, which requires that the defendant summoned by service by public notice be absent at least twice in order to hold a trial without the defendant's appearance at the court without the defendant's appearance at the court of first instance, after the defendant was absent on the date of the pronouncement, since the criminal trial of the court of first instance was closed and the date of the pronouncement was notified after the defendant was absent on the date of the pronouncement, it is against the provisions of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 345 of the

A

Attorney B

Daejeon District Court Order 91Mo2 dated March 14, 1991

The order of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

Re-appellant and his defense counsel's grounds for reappeal are also examined.

The reasoning of the order of the court below is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, while maintaining the decision of the court of first instance that dismissed the application for recovery of the defendant's right of appeal of this case, the defendant, who is the defendant, was indicted to the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court for the crime of extortion, etc. and was under trial of the court of first instance of the same case, and the court tried to summon the defendant and execute compulsory appearance several times as at the time of the original adjudication after the sentencing was notified by his defense counsel during the period of 35 years since his defense counsel was present at the trial of the same case, but the sentence was delayed due to his failure to appear at the trial date, but the court failed to appear at the trial date, but the above court decided that service by public notice of the summons of the 41 trial date of the court of first instance as to the defendant was made by ordinary method, but the defendant was not present at the trial date and the defense counsel did not appear at the trial date and did not appear at the trial date and did not have any responsibility for designating the defendant's defense counsel.

The court of the first instance of the above defendant case seems to have made the above judgment in the absence of the defendant by public notice after serving a writ of summons of the trial date on the defendant by public notice as above. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below that the above court was justified by serving a writ of the trial date on the defendant by public notice in accordance with Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Enforcement Rule, and there is no illegality in the above judgment. However, even if the summons of the defendant is made by public notice under Article 19 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the above Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the court is required that the defendant summoned by public notice be absent at least twice in order to judge without the defendant's appearance. According to the above reasoning of the court below, the above court served the summons of the 41 trial date on the defendant by public notice and rendered the above judgment immediately after the defendant was absent by public notice. In other words, it is contrary to the above provisions of the Enforcement Rule.

In this case, the possibility that the defendant would have been able to observe the statutory period of appeal if the above judgment court had rendered a public trial again once again after summons by public notice cannot be ruled out.

Ultimately, it can be viewed that the defendant's failure to file an appeal against the above judgment within the statutory period is due to a cause not attributable to the defendant. Therefore, the court below rejected the claim for recovery of the right of appeal only for the reasons stated in its decision, or the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the claim for recovery of appeal or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, the reappeal of this case is therefore justified, and the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below without examining the remaining grounds for reappeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)