The case where the Supreme Court corrects the dismissal of a final appeal by judgment on the grounds that the defendant did not submit an appellate brief within the statutory period after trusting the date of service by mistake.

[1] Article 400 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004No566 delivered on February 4, 2005

As to the instant case, the decision made on March 25, 2005 by a party member is corrected as follows. The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. According to the records, although the defendant's notification of the receipt of a party member's trial record was delivered to the defendant on March 3, 2005, the delivery date on the notice of mail delivery was stated as "the mailman's mistake on February 28, 2005", and the defendant's statement of the grounds for appeal was received on March 22, 2005 within the submission period. However, the party member believed that the delivery date by mistake is true and the defendant did not file a statement of the grounds for appeal within the statutory period on March 25, 2005, and it can be known that the defendant dismissed the defendant's appeal. Thus, it is decided to correct the above decision of the party member whose error was obvious by Article 400 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the judgment of the court below is just in finding that the defendant did not have the intent or ability to return the deposit to the victim at the time of concluding the lease contract with the victim Hong Man-man, and that the defendant deceiving the court as stated in the facts charged and acquired the dividends of 5 million won by deceiving the court. It cannot be said that there is an error of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, and the argument that the sentence of the court below is too heavy cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, as alleged in the grounds for appeal

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)