(a) A case where provisions regarding the extension of statutory period have been exceeded;

(b) Method of filing an appeal against a decision of the court of first instance, which has no jurisdiction over deliberation of appeal which is the jurisdictional court for review;

A. Inasmuch as the distance of Busan district court's Busan district court's location was 42.9 km due to land-ro, the re-appellant's dwelling area, Jin-gu and the re-appellant's dwelling area was 42.9 km due to land-ro, the re-appellant's dismissal decision of request for re-appeal on October 22, 1982 was served on October 27, 1982 and filed on the 1st of the following month after the end of the ordinary period of appeal is legitimate re-appeal.

B. Although the request for a retrial was erroneous in the Busan District Court, which is not the Busan District Court, the retrial court, the Busan District Court should reverse the decision of the first instance court without jurisdiction by applying Article 367 of the Criminal Procedure Act mutatis mutandis to the case where the appeal was filed against the applicant for a retrial.

A. Article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 80Mo37 Dated November 15, 1980 Dated November 15, 1962

Re-appellant

Busan District Court Order 82No6 dated October 22, 1982, 82No6 dated November 2, 1982

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed in entirety.

The case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

1. Determination on November 2, 1982

The records show that the court below's decision to dismiss a request for retrial was made by the Panel Division of the Busan District Court on October 22, 1982, and the copy of the decision was served to the Re-Appellant on November 1, 1982, and it is clear that the Re-Appellant filed an immediate appeal against the above decision, and when calculating the period of immediate appeal from October 27, 1982 to three days, the last day of the period is the 30th day of the month and the last day of the Busan District Court, the Busan District Court, the domicile of the re-appellant, was 42.9 kilometers on land, and the Busan District Court's location of Busan District Court was 42.9 kilometers on land. Thus, the Re-Appellant's decision was a legitimate reappeal within the period prescribed by the law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 62Mo12, Nov. 15, 1962).

2. Determination on October 22, 1982

In light of the records, the defendant and the prosecutor appealed to the Busan District Court Panel Division of the District Court (79No4953) and appealed to the defendant on November 6, 1979 that the defendant was sentenced to a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for April 6, 1979. The defendant and the prosecutor appealed from the Busan District Court Panel Division of the District Court (79No4953) to the defendant for four months, and the defendant was sentenced to a penalty of 25,000 won, and the defendant was sentenced to a penalty of 25,00 won, and the defendant was dismissed from the party member (80Do654) as a result of the defendant's appeal. Accordingly, in order to request a retrial, the original judgment subject to a retrial on the ground that there is a reason falling under Article 420 subparagraph 2 or 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the original judgment, the original judgment shall be declared by the Panel Panel Division of the District Court of Busan District Court. Therefore, Article 423 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall also be brought to the Busan District Court Panel Panel.

Nevertheless, even though the claimant filed a petition for retrial of this case with a court without jurisdiction which has not jurisdiction for Busan District Court's Msan branch, the above Mountainous District Court accepted the petition for retrial of this case, this point is excessive, and there is no ground for retrial as alleged in the claimant, and thus dismissed the petition on the merits. The court below which received this appeal should have reversed the first instance court's decision without jurisdiction by applying Article 367 of the Criminal Procedure Act mutatis mutandis, and should have taken the procedure as the competent court for retrial. However, it cannot be said that there was a violation of law which maintained the first instance court's decision without jurisdiction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 80Mo37, Nov. 15, 1980) and the court for retrial has reversed the order of the court below and remanded the case to the court below for retrial as it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)