[1] The meaning of "statement of grounds for appeal" under Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act and whether an appeal may be dismissed by decision where a statement of grounds for appeal stating no grounds for appeal falling under any subparagraph of Article 383 of the same Act is filed (affirmative in principle)

[2] The case holding that the appeal may be dismissed by a decision pursuant to Article 380 of the Act, in a case where the "statement of appeal" did not state any grounds for appeal, and only stated that the "statement of appeal" requires a reduction of fine, and no other ground exists to judge ex officio.

[1] The "statement of grounds for appeal" under Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be deemed to mean the document containing the grounds for appeal as stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 383 of the same Act. Therefore, even if the appellant or defense counsel submitted the title of "statement of grounds for appeal", if the appellant or defense counsel does not include any of the grounds stated in the above Article of the same Act, it shall not be deemed to have submitted a legitimate statement of grounds for appeal. In this case, the court of final appeal may dismiss the appeal by decision pursuant to Article 380 of the same Act: Provided, That the court of final appeal may render a judgment ex officio on the grounds under subparagraphs 1 through 3 of Article 383 of the same Act (proviso to Article 384 of the same Act), and the court of final appeal may render a judgment on such grounds by decision if there are grounds falling under the judgment of the court of final appeal.

[2] The case holding that the appeal may be dismissed by a decision pursuant to Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act in a case where it is evident that the "statement of grounds for appeal" submitted by the defendant does not include any grounds for appeal, and the "statement of grounds for appeal" only includes a request for a reduction of fine, and it does not fall under any of the grounds stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and no other reason exists to judge ex officio.

[1] Articles 380, 383, and 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 380, 383, and 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2009No1050 Decided December 24, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

Article 380 of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that an appellant or defense counsel shall dismiss an appeal without filing a written notice of receipt of records of the court of final appeal within 20 days from the date of receipt of the notice of receipt of records by the court of final appeal (Article 380 of the Act only). Meanwhile, the court of final appeal shall judge the grounds stated in the statement of final appeal (main sentence of Article 384 of the Act). Article 383 of the Act provides that a ground for final appeal against the judgment of the court of final appeal may be deemed as a violation of the Constitution, Acts, subordinate statutes, orders, or rules which affected the judgment of the court of final appeal; Article 383 of the Act provides that a ground for final appeal against the judgment of the court of final appeal may be deemed as a legitimate ground for final appeal including Article 38 of the Act, if it is repealed or modified after the judgment of the court of final appeal.

According to the records, the petition of appeal submitted by the defendant does not contain any statement in the grounds of appeal, and the petition of appeal contains only a statement that the court of first instance maintained by the court below would request the reduction of a fine of three million won imposed on the defendant. It is clear that this does not fall under any of the grounds prescribed in subparagraphs of Article 383 of the Act, and it does not constitute a ground for ex officio judgment. It is not acknowledged that there are any other grounds for ex officio judgment. Accordingly, according to the above legal principles, the appeal of this case constitutes a case where the appeal of this case can be dismissed by decision pursuant to Article 380

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

Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon (Presiding Justice)