such service may not be deemed to have been duly made.

Unless the defendant has received a certified copy of summary order from a post office which is different from the above residence and received a certified copy of the above summary order from the post office which is a place where the defendant was living in the above residence and did not deliver it to the defendant, it cannot be deemed that there was a lawful service.

Article 61 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Msan District Court Jinju Branch Court Order 84 seconds1

The order of the court below is revoked.

A request by an appellant for the recovery of the right to request a formal trial shall be permitted.

According to the investigation records of the criminal case against the appellant and the records of the first instance court, since the appellant stated his address at the time of investigation by the investigation agency as the Eup in South-North-west (number omitted) and there was no other address or address changed, and thus, the appellant sent the original copy of the summary order to the investigation agency or the court, on December 19, 1983, to the appellant’s address as the appellant’s address, and the original copy of the summary order was received on behalf of the appellant on December 19, 1983, the appellant did not appear to have received the original copy of the above summary order. However, according to each statement of the court below’s inquiry statement, the appellant’s request for delivery of documents to the non-indicted 3 who was not the appellant’s address on November 5, 1982 should be delivered to the above non-indicted 478-2 who was not the appellant’s address at the time of the above request for formal trial but the delivery of documents to the appellant who was not the appellant’s address (number omitted).

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)