[1] Whether an appeal against the decision of an appellate court is re-appellant (affirmative)

[2] The initial date of the appeal period in criminal procedure (=the date of pronouncement of judgment)

[3] Whether an error in the procedure of sentencing affects the initial date of the appeal period (negative)

[1] Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "an immediate appeal may be filed with the Supreme Court only on the ground that there is a violation of the Constitution, Acts, orders or rules that affected the judgment of the appellate court or the appellate court." Thus, the decision of the appellate court shall be contested by re-appealing to the Supreme Court.

[2] Article 343(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the period of appeal shall run from the date on which a judgment is pronounced or notified," and in criminal proceedings, the period of appeal shall run from the date on which the judgment is rendered in the courtroom regardless of whether a certified copy of the judgment is served on the parties, and this shall also apply where a judgment is rendered in the absence of

[3] Even if there is an error in the procedure of sentencing, the illegality should be disputed by an appeal, and there is an error in the procedure of sentencing, not affecting the initial date of the appeal period.

[1] Articles 376(1) and 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 343(2) and 374 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Article 374 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 73Mo72 dated December 28, 1973 (Gong1974, 7715) / [3] Supreme Court Order 2002Hu113 dated September 27, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2652)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo Jae-sik et al.

Seoul High Court Order 2001Ro12 dated December 26, 2001

The order of the court below is revoked. The reappeal is dismissed.

Article 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "an immediate appeal may be filed with the Supreme Court only on the ground that there is a violation of the Constitution, Acts, orders or rules that have affected the judgment of the appellate court or the high court." Thus, the decision of the appellate court should be contested by the method of re-appeal to the Supreme Court.

According to the records, the Re-Appellant's appeal against the judgment rendered by the Panel Division of the Seoul District Court, which is the appellate court, was filed after the appeal period expired, and it is clear that the above court filed an appeal against the decision of dismissal by applying Article 376 (1) Item 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the above court should regard it as reappeal and send records to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, the court below sent it to the Seoul High Court, which is the court of original judgment, and the court of original judgment dismissed the appeal. Thus, the court of original judgment is decided to revoke the order of the court of original judgment, and the reappeal of this case is treated as a reappeal against the decision made by the Panel Division of the above District Court, which is the appellate court (see Supreme Court Order 73Mo72, Dec. 28, 1973).

Article 343(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the period of appeal shall run from the date when the judgment is pronounced or notified," so in criminal proceedings, the period of appeal shall commence from the date when the judgment is rendered in the court regardless of whether a certified copy of the judgment is served on the parties, and this shall apply to the case where the judgment is rendered in the absence of the defendant. Article 374 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the period of appeal shall be seven days. Since it is obvious that the re-appellant submitted a petition of appeal on September 28, 2001, which was the date when the judgment was rendered in this case, from September 14, 2001, which was seven days after the date when the judgment was rendered in this case, and thus, the decision of the collegiate division of the above district court dismissed the appeal by deeming the above appeal as the appeal after the extinguishment of the right

In addition, even if there is an error in the sentencing procedure, the illegality should be disputed by an appeal, and it does not affect the initial date of the appeal due to an error in the sentencing procedure, and even if the sentencing procedure of this case is illegal as the Re-Appellant's assertion, it does not affect the conclusion of this case.

The reappeal of this case is without merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is revoked, and the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)