[1] The meaning of a statement in criminal procedure

[2] Validity of the withdrawal of unclear grounds for appeal (Invalidity)

[3] The case holding that a mistake of facts cannot be viewed as withdrawn in the grounds of appeal where the grounds of appeal are stated as the purport of unfair sentencing under the name of the presiding judge, even though there was an assertion of mistake of facts in the grounds of appeal on the grounds

[4] In a case where the appellate court reversed the appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, whether the appellate court has rejected the judgment on the grounds of appeal for mistake of facts (negative)

[1] According to Article 279 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 141(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the presiding judge may demand the public prosecutor, the defendant or his defense counsel to question or prove his/her name as part of the litigation direction. Here, the chief judge's request for questioning of the parties as to the factual and legal matters and give them an opportunity to supplement or correct their statements or arguments in order to clarify the litigation relationship in the case. Thus, if the party's statement or assertion as to a certain matter is clear, such matters shall not be subject to the title, but shall not be subject to the title, and the exercise of the right to command the lawsuit, including the name of the party, shall be based on

[2] A person who has filed a statement of grounds for appeal may withdraw part of the grounds for appeal stated in the grounds for appeal on the trial date, and in this case, the appellate court does not need to explain its decision on the grounds for appeal that has been withdrawn in the grounds for appeal. However, if the grounds for appeal are withdrawn, the appellate court may impose restrictions on the withdrawal of the grounds for appeal that may not be considered as the grounds for appeal. Thus, the withdrawal

[3] The case holding that a mistake of facts cannot be viewed as withdrawn in the case where the grounds for appeal are expressed as the purport of unfair sentencing under the name of the presiding judge, even though there was an assertion of mistake of facts in the statement of grounds of appeal along with unfair sentencing

[4] The appellate court rejected the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts by recognizing that the defendants' grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing are well-grounded, and reversed the judgment of the first instance and then recognizing all the facts charged against the defendants. Thus, the appellate court's judgment is not erroneous in the misapprehension of judgment.

[1] Article 279 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 141(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure / [2] Articles 279 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 141(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure / [3] Articles 279 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 141(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure / [4] Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[4] Supreme Court Decision 66Do1581 delivered on January 31, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 89Do1297 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1532)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Kim Young-soo

Daegu District Court Decision 98No4165 delivered on February 26, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. 67 days of detention days after each appeal shall be included in each original sentence.

Each of the grounds of appeal by the Defendants and the public defender are examined together.

1. According to Article 279 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 141(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the presiding judge may demand the public prosecutor, the accused or the defense counsel to question or prove the reason for appeal as part of the order of a lawsuit. In order to clarify the litigation relationship of the case, the presiding judge refers to providing the parties with an opportunity to ask questions as to the factual and legal matters and to supplement or correct their statements or arguments. Thus, if the party's statement or arguments concerning a certain matter are clear, such matters shall not be subject to the title, but shall not be subject to the title, and if the party's statement or arguments are exercised, the right to command the lawsuit including the name shall be designated as its index. In addition, the person who has filed the statement of grounds for appeal may withdraw part of the reason for appeal stated in the date of the appellate court's trial, and in this case, the appellate court has no need to explain the decision on the reason for appeal withdrawn from the judgment. However, the withdrawal of the reason for appeal can only be subject to restrictions that may not be considered as the grounds for appeal.

According to the records, it is clear that Defendant 1 claims a mistake of facts, along with the statement of reasons for appeal, through the statement of reasons for appeal, and Defendant 2 stated only the statement of reasons for appeal as grounds for appeal, but it is clear that mistake of facts was also asserted as grounds for appeal. Thus, according to the first trial records of the court below, the grounds for appeal filed by the Defendants are erroneous facts and unfair sentencing. However, according to the court below's first trial records, Defendant 1 stated each reasons for appeal based on the statement of reasons for appeal, and stated Defendant 1 as the purport of unfair sentencing according to the presiding judge's statement of reasons for appeal, and according to the reasoning of the court below, the court below states that the reasons for appeal by the Defendants are the purport of unfair sentencing. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to see that Defendant 1 was withdrawn from the argument of mistake of facts among the grounds for appeal clearly issued by Defendant 2, and since Defendant 2 also maintained the argument of mistake of facts among the grounds for appeal filed by Defendant 2, it cannot be said that the grounds for appeal by the Defendants are unlawful.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts by recognizing that the defendants' grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing are well-grounded, reversed the judgment of the court of first instance, and admitting all the criminal facts against the defendants. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of judgment as alleged in the grounds for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 66Do1581, Jan. 31, 1967; 89Do1297, Sept. 12, 1989).

2. Examining the evidence specified in the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below in comparison with records, the court below did not err in misapprehending the legal principles against the rules of evidence, as alleged in the ground of appeal, in holding that there was evidence of a crime as to the use of forged official documents, the uttering of falsified documents, the uttering of falsified documents, the attempted fraud, and the theft among the defendant's this case against the defendant 1, and the fraud and attempted fraud among the defendant's this case against

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 67 days of detention days after each appeal shall be included in each original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)