[1] Whether Article 172(1) of the Civil Procedure Act applies mutatis mutandis to the supplementary service in the criminal procedure and the number of delivery capacity of the supplementary service recipient

[2] The case holding that the service of a written notification of the receipt of a trial record on a child remaining 10 years old is lawful

[1] In criminal proceedings, Article 172(1) of the Civil Procedure Act concerning supplementary service shall apply mutatis mutandis in accordance with Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, as long as documents are delivered to the defendant's family members and the family members' family members' family members have an intelligence to change the contents of the documents, service shall be effective even if the defendant was not aware of the contents of the documents. Thus, if there is an intelligence to change the contents of the documents, it shall be sufficient to understand the purpose of service and deliver the received documents to the receiver, even if there is no need to understand the validity of general judicial system or procedural acts.

[2] The case holding that the defendant's notification of the receipt of the trial records against the defendant is lawful, on the ground that although the defendant's child at the time of service of this case was not deemed to have understood the validity of the criminal procedure that may arise from the service of this case, it can be seen that the defendant's child understood the purport of the service itself and expected to deliver the received documents to his father (the defendant)

[1] Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 172(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 172(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Order 95Mo20 dated August 16, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3303) / [1] Supreme Court Order 80Nu357 Decided October 14, 1980 / [2] Supreme Court Order 68Ma336 dated May 7, 1968 (No 16-2, 8)

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 96No1338 dated April 10, 1996

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In accordance with Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 172 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act concerning supplementary service shall apply mutatis mutandis to the criminal procedure. Thus, as long as documents are delivered to a family member living together with a defendant and his family member has a mental capability to change his/her family life, service shall be effective even if the defendant did not know of the contents of the documents. Thus, if there is an intelligence to change his/her family life, it is not necessary to understand the validity of general judicial system or procedural acts, it shall have the ability to understand the purpose of service and to expect that documents received to be delivered to the receiver at least (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Mo20, Aug. 16, 1995).

According to the records, on January 26, 1996, the defendant (re-appellant) was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act, etc., and on February 1 of the same year, the defendant filed an appeal on February 1 of the same year, and the notification of the receipt of the notification of the notification of the case was served to the defendant on March 5 of the same year, but the defendant did not submit the appellate brief within the period for submission of the appellate brief as of April 10 of the same year. According to the above notification of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the notification of the receipt of the notification, the notification is deemed to have received the defendant's normal expression. The above normal expression was born on February 11, 1986, and it can be recognized that the defendant's normal expression was 10 years old at the time of the receipt of the above documents, but it cannot be deemed that the delivery of the notification of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the notification to the defendant to the defendant (refer to the court below's notification of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the defendant.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)