If a certified copy of the judgment is sent to the head of the detention center by facsimile to the person confined in the detention center, the time when the notice of the judgment becomes effective.

The delivery of a certified copy of court records by facsimile constitutes "other appropriate method" as stipulated in Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Meanwhile, if a person subject to a judgment becomes aware of the contents of the judgment, it shall be deemed that the judgment was notified regardless of whether or not the person was actually aware of the contents of the judgment. Thus, unlike the case of service of a certified copy of court records, unlike the case of service of a certified copy of court records, it shall not be deemed that the judgment was notified only when the person subject to judgment becomes aware of the contents of the judgment. Furthermore, if the person subject to the judgment is detained in the detention house by facsimile, if the certified copy of court records was sent to the head of the detention house by facsimile, the head of the detention house has a duty to deliver the certified copy of court records to the person subject to the judgment under detention, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the person subject to the judgment became aware of the contents of the judgment. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the judgment was notified when the certified copy of court records was sent to the head of the detention house

Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Law Firm Barun Law, Attorneys Jeong Ho-ho et al.

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Order 2004Ro24 dated April 30, 2004

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "a pronouncement or notification of a judgment shall be made by means of a written judgment in the court room, and in other cases, it shall be made by means of service of a certified copy of the written judgment or by any other appropriate means: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case where other provisions exist in the law," and the delivery of a certified copy of the written judgment by facsimile constitutes "other appropriate means" as provided in the above provision. Meanwhile, in the case where a person who is subject to a judgment becomes aware of the contents of the judgment, if he/she becomes aware of the contents of the judgment, it shall be deemed that the judgment was notified regardless of whether he/she actually becomes aware of the contents of the judgment. Therefore, unlike the case of service of a certified copy of the written judgment, it shall not be deemed that the judgment was notified only when the person who is subject to a judgment becomes aware of the

Furthermore, if a person being tried is confined in a detention house, if a certified copy of the judgment is sent to the head of the detention house by facsimile, the head of the detention house is obligated to deliver it to the person being detained. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the person being tried has reached a state in which the contents of the judgment can be known. Therefore, when a certified copy of the judgment is sent to the head of the detention house by facsimile, the judgment shall be deemed to have been notified.

In the same purport, the court below's decision of dismissal of the reappeal of this case became effective on February 9, 2004 when the re-appellant, who was the prisoner, was sent to the head of the Seoul detention center by facsimile, was aware of the contents of the decision. Accordingly, the decision of dismissal of the reappeal of this case became final and conclusive before the period of probation expires, and thus, the decision of revocation of the probation of this case was justified and the decision of the court of first instance that dismissed the application of this case is just and justified. In this regard, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the notification of the decision, or by violating Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Act as alleged in the grounds for reappeal of this case, nor did it be viewed that there were any grounds for correction of the judgment under Article 400 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)