The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In other words, according to Articles 14(1), 14(3), and 455(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 455(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, where a legitimate formal trial is requested from a defendant who was tried at the request of the head of a police station, that is, where a request for a formal trial is made by the defendant who was tried at the request of the head of a police station, a request for a trial is an action identical to a public prosecution and must be made by trial proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8503, Mar. 29, 2012). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined as follows: (i) where a defendant requests a formal trial against a trial, the police station shall send the case records attached to the request for a formal trial to the court; and (ii) the public prosecutor shall not send the case records and evidence to the court; and (iii) even if the public prosecutor does not need a separate indictment, the public prosecution procedure of this case was dismissed.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the delivery of case records and the correction of procedural defects after requesting a formal trial against the trial

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