[1] Whether Article 155 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, which provides that the grounds for appeal shall be clearly stated in the statement of grounds for appeal, violates the Criminal Procedure Act or unfairly limits the right to appeal (negative)

[2] The case holding that where the prosecutor stated that "the reason for appeal" in the "reason for appeal" as to the judgment of not guilty in the first instance, it cannot be deemed that there is a legitimate reason for appeal

[1] Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that an appellant or his/her defense counsel shall submit an appellate brief within 20 days from the date on which he/she received the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial records, and Article 155 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that the appellate brief or written reply shall clearly state the reasons for appeal and the reasons for appeal, and it shall not be deemed that the above Regulation on Criminal Procedure is in conflict with the Criminal Procedure Act, which regulates the criminal procedure based on the Supreme Court’s legislative power stipulated under Article 108 of the Constitution, and it is not to unreasonably alter or restrict the effect of the Criminal

[2] The case holding that if the prosecutor stated that "the reason for appeal" in the "reason for appeal" as to the judgment of not guilty in the first instance, it cannot be deemed that there is a legitimate reason for appeal.

[1] Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 155 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, Article 108 of the Constitution / [2] Articles 361-3(1) and 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 155 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure

[1] Supreme Court Order 2000Mo216 dated Feb. 23, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 836)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo-seok et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2001No2674 delivered on April 8, 2003

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the prosecutor guilty of the ancillary charges of this case on the ground that the prosecutor submitted the statement of grounds for appeal 20 days after the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records, but it can be deemed that legitimate grounds for appeal are stated in the petition of appeal.

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below that the petition of appeal of this case can be seen as having legitimate reasons for appeal.

Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that an appellant or his/her defense counsel shall submit a statement of grounds for appeal to the appellate court within 20 days from the date on which he/she receives a notification of the receipt of the trial records, and Article 155 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, upon receipt of such a statement of grounds for appeal or written reply, shall clearly state the grounds for appeal or written reply in detail. The above rules on criminal procedure are regulating the criminal procedure based on the Supreme Court’s legislative power prescribed under Article 108 of the Constitution, and it does not conflict with the Criminal Procedure Act, to unreasonably alter or restrict the effect of the Criminal Procedure Act, or to unreasonably restrict the right to appeal (see Supreme Court Order 200Mo216, Feb. 23,

According to the records, the prosecutor's petition of appeal in this case against the judgment of not guilty at the court of first instance contains only the phrase "the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles", and it does not specify any other specific grounds for appeal. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that such entry in the petition of appeal does not constitute a legitimate grounds for appeal.

Nevertheless, the court below presumed that the above entry in the petition of appeal constitutes a legitimate entry in the grounds for appeal, and found the defendant guilty of the conjunctive charges added by the court below after further deliberation in this case where it cannot be deemed that there is any matter to be examined ex officio, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on legitimate entry in the grounds for appeal (However, according to the records, since it is not clear whether the prosecutor's grounds for appeal was submitted 20 days after the date on which the public prosecutor received the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the grounds for appeal, the court below

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the case of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)