[1] The elements for determining the dismissal of an appeal on the grounds of the submission of the appellate brief

[2] The case reversing the decision of dismissal of the court below on the ground that it is insufficient to view that the notice of receipt of the trial record was legally served on the re-appellant

[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 time when he/she received a notice to send the records of appeal from the appellate court, and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds of appeal, the appeal may be dismissed by decision. However, in order for the appellant to make a decision to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of the non-submission of the grounds of appeal, the appellant shall be a case where he/she fails to submit the statement of grounds of appeal

[2] Where the court below served a written notification of the receipt of the trial record to the location of the headquarters of the re-appellant company as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, but the above company moved to another place before the above company's main office was far earlier and retired before the recipient stated in the service report was served, it cannot be concluded that the above written notification of the receipt of the trial record was lawfully delivered to the re-appellant, and thus, the court below reversed the decision of dismissal

[1] Articles 361-2, 361-3, and 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 61(2) and 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Mo252 Decided July 29, 2002 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Do1371 Decided September 26, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3340)

[Re-Appellant]

Attorney Park Jong-soo

Chuncheon District Court Order 2001No1024 dated March 27, 2002

The order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

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 time he/she received a notice to send the records of appeal from the appellate court, and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds of appeal, the appeal may be dismissed by decision. However, in order to ensure that the dismissal of appeal can be decided on the grounds of the non-submission of the grounds of appeal, the appellant shall be a case where the appellant fails to submit the grounds of appeal within 20 days

2. According to the records, the court of first instance alleged in the court of first instance that the court of first instance served the notification of the receipt of the trial record on the location of the office and the location of the office of the re-appellant as the location of the office of the re-appellant, and the notification of the notification of the trial record as 547-10. The notification of the notification of the trial date was received on November 9, 2001. The re-appellant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal, and on March 13, 2002, he asserted that the Kim Jong-dae was a person who was not related to the re-appellant, and even in the court of first instance, he asserted that the non-appellant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the date of receipt of the notification of the notification of the trial record, and that the non-appellant did not have any grounds for ex officio examination, and that he did not dismiss the appeal under Article 36-13(1)6-13 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, according to the Re-Appellant's certified copy of the registry (198 pages of the trial record) and records attached to the Re-Appellant's filing of the statement of reasons for appeal, the Re-Appellant transferred its head office from 547-10 to 41-6 "Gangcheon-gu, Hongcheon-gu, Hongcheon-gu, Seoul" to 547-10 before the notification of the above notification of reasons for appeal, and the Kim Jong-dae was served as the director of the Re-Appellant from November 8, 199, although the above notification of the notification of the notification was served as the director of the Re-Appellant from November 8, 199, the fact that the director was only posted before the above notification of the notification of reasons for appeal was served, and the 547-10 "No. 547-10 of the above notification of the notification of the notification of reasons for appeal" is still called the office of the Re-Appellant, or at the time of delivering the above notification of the notification of reasons for appeal.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on whether the above "Gangwon-dong 547-10" was the office of the re-appellant's branch office or other office of the re-appellant, etc., and whether the above notification of the receipt of the trial record could have arrived at the re-appellant, and should have judged whether the above notification of the receipt of the trial record was the appellate brief submission period of the re-appellant. However, the court below decided that the notification of the receipt of the trial record was lawfully delivered to the re-appellant without exception of the court below and that the notification of the receipt of the trial record was not filed within 20 days from the delivery date of the notification of the notification of the trial record and the appeal was in violation of the provisions of Articles 61 (2) and 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This constitutes a case where the litigation procedure violated the law and affected the decision (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1371, Sept. 26, 197, etc.).

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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)