In the appellate court, the appellate court rendered an illegal service by public notice on the receipt of the trial records without any reason attributable to the defendant and rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that no grounds for appeal have been submitted within the prescribed period, but the appeal is later dismissed (negative

In the indictment and the first instance judgment, the defendant sent a written notification of the receipt of the trial record to a wrong address, but the service by public notice is impossible, and the defendant is not aware of it, but the defendant dismissed the appeal by the ruling pursuant to Article 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which did not submit the written notification of the receipt of the trial record. In case the court filed an appeal at the same time as the request for recovery of the right to appeal and made a decision to recover the defendant's right to appeal, the appellate court did not meet the requirements for service by public notice, but did not submit the written notification of the receipt of the trial record within the prescribed period. This is due to reasons for which the defendant cannot be held responsible, and thus, it cannot be deemed illegal

Articles 63, 345, 361-2, and 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Order 89No5974 dated January 19, 1990

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

1. The record reveals that the Re-Appellant's address is dismissed by the ruling of the court of first instance under Article 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the second-appellant's address, and the second-appellant's address is 492 Dong-dong 3, Dong-dong 492 (the indictment is also the same). Accordingly, the court below sent the notification of the receipt of the notification of the re-appellant to the third 492 Dong-dong 3, Dong-dong 492, but it is impossible to serve the notification because the above three Dong-dong 3, Dong-dong 492 were entered and sent again on December 4, 1989, and service was impossible due to the addressee's unknown time, service by public notice was made by public notice and service by public notice was dismissed by the ruling of the court of first instance. The court below's decision to dismiss the appeal by public notice from the Seoul District Prosecutors' office on August 10, 190, which did not know that the above dismissal was dismissed by public notice.

2. As such, if the court below rendered a decision dismissing the appeal on the ground that the Re-Appellant did not submit the grounds of appeal within the prescribed period of time, even though the requirements of service by public notice were not satisfied with respect to the Re-Appellant, it shall not be deemed unlawful on the ground that the Re-Appellant did not provide the Re-Appellant with an opportunity to submit the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.