2015Do2026(a) Business obstruction

B. Violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act

A

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 2015No18 Decided January 20, 2015

April 23, 2015

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the provisions of Articles 361-3 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court’s structure is to be tried by the statement of reasons for appeal filed by the defendant or his/her defense counsel within the statutory period, so even if the statement of reasons for appeal is filed, the appellate court may not decide on the appellate case without waiting the expiration of the period for submitting the statement of reasons for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do2611, Jun. 25, 2004; 2008Do1213, Apr. 9, 20

2. According to the records, the lower court: (a) appointed a public defender on January 8, 2015; (b) served the Defendant on January 12, 2015 with the notification of the receipt of the trial record and the notification of the appointment of a public defender; (c) served with the notification of the receipt of the trial record and the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial record on the same date on which the national defense counsel was sent; and (d) the Defendant filed the statement of grounds for appeal on January 16, 2015 and the written opinion on January 19, 2015; and (c) filed the first trial date on January 20, 2015; and (d) the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on the same date

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even though the period for submitting the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the public defender was until February 2, 2015, the lower court rendered a judgment on January 20, 2015, which was prior to the expiration of such period, deprived the Defendant and the public defender of the opportunity to change and withdraw the grounds for appeal. Ultimately, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, or by violating the statutes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal assigning

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Kim Jae-han

Chief Justice Kim Jong-il