Whether it constitutes “when a criminal defendant who is pending in a trial fails to take measures such as reporting his/her new domicile, and thus fails to appear on the trial date or to know the fact of sentencing due to the failure to serve the documents, etc. on the trial date or by not knowing the fact of sentencing,” as prescribed in Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act (negative)

Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 2007Hu5185 dated November 12, 2007

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

A request for the recovery of a right to appeal under Article 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be filed only when a person who is pending in a court as a criminal defendant case has failed to file an appeal within the period for filing an appeal due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself or his/her representative. When a person moves to his/her domicile or his/her reported domicile at the time of prosecution, he/she shall devise a method by which he/she can report his/her new domicile or other means by which he/she can know the progress of litigation. If such measures were not taken, he/she may not be exempted from liability due

According to the records, the re-appellant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months in Seoul Central District Court 2006Da5637, Nov. 24, 2006, and the defendant filed an appeal on the same day. However, the court of first instance sent documents, such as a copy of indictment to the defendant, to Gangnam-gu (number omitted), but the date of trial was impossible to serve, and the defendant was sent 010- (number 1 omitted) which is the defendant's cell phone number on Nov. 20, 206, and was served with documents such as a copy of indictment, etc. on Nov. 20, 2006 (number 1 omitted), and the receipt was still sent to the court of appeal for 7 months, stating that the defendant was present on the first day of Seoul Central District Court 206DaMa5637, which was served on the date of trial, and the defendant did not appear in the court of appeal to have been notified of the notification of the notification of the defendant's trial records concerning the defendant's address.

Therefore, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the re-appellant was unable to exercise the right to appeal (Immediate appeal) against the decision on dismissal of the appeal. Thus, the order of the court below that rejected the Re-Appellant's claim for recovery of the appeal of this case on the same ground is just, and there is no violation of the Constitution, law, order or rule that affected the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)