In a case where the service of a person who is confined in a prison, detention house, or a national police station before being confined to the person who was confined in the detention room of the correctional institution, detention house, or national police station is served on the ground of the submission of a written statement of grounds for appeal / Whether the service of the document was served on the previous state or residence without gathering the fact that the defendant was arrested or detained (affirmative) / The same applies to the case where the service of the document, such as a written notice of receipt of trial records, is served on the former state or residence of the person under whose name the service was served

According to Articles 361-4, 361-3, and 361-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, where an appellant or defense counsel fails to file an appellate brief within 20 days from the date on which he/she received the notification of the receipt of the trial records from the appellate court, and the petition of appeal does not contain any statement in the grounds for appeal, the appeal may be dismissed by decision. However, in order to decide the dismissal of appeal on the grounds of the submission of the appellate brief, the appellant should have received the notification of the legitimate receipt of the trial records,

Meanwhile, according to Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act, if the service of the document to be served on the person confined in the detention room of a correctional institution, detention house, or national police station is unlawful if the previous principal or residence prior to the detention without being served on the head of the prison, detention house, or national police station, and the service of the document to the previous principal or residence without gathering the custody of the defendant, and the same effect does not occur even if the court was served on the previous principal or residence without gathering the custody of the defendant. In addition, if the service of the document, such as a written notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the notification of the receipt of the service, is served on the previous principal or residence of the person under whose service was served, the validity

Articles 65, 361-2, 361-3, and 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Order 82Meu349 Decided December 28, 1982 (Gong1983, 354) Decision 95Mo14 dated June 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2667) Supreme Court Order 2007Mo77 dated March 10, 2008

Defendant

Defendant

Suwon District Court Order 2016No7805 dated April 10, 2017

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to Articles 361-4, 361-3, and 361-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, where an appellant or defense counsel fails to submit a statement of grounds of appeal within 20 days from the date on which he/she received the notification of the receipt of the notification of grounds of appeal from the appellate court, and no statement of grounds of appeal is indicated in the petition of appeal, the appeal may be dismissed by decision. However, in order to decide the dismissal of appeal on the grounds of submission of the statement of grounds of appeal, the appellant should have received a legitimate written notification

Meanwhile, according to Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act, if the service to be made to a person confined in a prison, detention house, or detention room of a national police station was made without the head of the prison, detention house, or national police station, and was made to the previous state or residence before the confinement, it shall be null and void as unlawful. The effect of service shall not take effect if the service was made to the previous state or residence without gathering the identification of the defendant (see Supreme Court en banc Order 82Meu349, Dec. 28, 1982; Supreme Court Order 95Mo14, Jun. 14, 1995; Supreme Court Order 2007Mo77, Mar. 10, 2008). If the service document, such as the date of arrest or detention, was served to the previous state or residence of the person under whose name the service was made, the validity of the service shall be determined after the time of arrest or detention, and if it does not take effect after the service.

2. The record reveals: (1) The Re-Appellant appealed the first instance judgment of this case on November 9, 2016; (2) the lower court served the Re-Appellant on the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial record, etc. on the address in the petition of appeal; (3) the non-indicted, the mother of the Re-Appellant, received it on November 21, 2016; and (4) the lower court decided to dismiss the appeal of the Re-Appellant on April 10, 2017 on the ground that the grounds that the grounds for appeal were not stated in the petition of appeal; and (4) the Re-Appellant was arrested in a criminal case on another criminal case on November 21, 2016 and tried in the detention condition; (8) the sentence of imprisonment became final and conclusive on July 20, 2017; and (5) the time and time of emergency arrest record attached to the notification of the notification of the trial record cannot be confirmed.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if the time when the re-appellant was arrested was served prior to the time when the notice of the receipt of the trial record was served, it is not effective to serve the notice of the trial record on the re-appellant, and as long as the service of the notification of the trial record, which is the initial date of the submission period of the grounds for appeal, is unlawful, the submission period of the grounds for appeal does not proceed. The court below's decision to dismiss the re-appellant's appeal on the grounds as stated in its reasoning without examining the time when the re-appellant was arrested and the time when the notice of the trial record

3. Therefore, the order 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)