[1] In a case where a defense counsel who did not submit a report of appointment of a defense counsel submitted a reappeal under the name of the defense counsel, whether the reappeal becomes effective as a lawful and effective reappeal (negative)

[2] In a case where the re-appellant filed a report on appointment of counsel only at the court of first instance and failed to submit a separate counsel appointment report at the court of first instance and the reappeal court, and the first instance court of first instance filed a reappeal under his name, the case holding that the reappeal's reappeal filed under his name without submitting a counsel appointment report within the statutory period has no validity of re-appeal

[1] Articles 32(1), 406, and 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 32(1), 406, and 415 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 2003Mo429 dated January 20, 2005

Re-appellant

Suwon District Court Order 2017Ro117 dated April 27, 2017

The reappeal is dismissed.

Article 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that an appointment of a defense counsel shall be submitted in writing, signed and sealed by a defense counsel at each instance. In addition, where a defense counsel who did not submit a report on appointment of a defense counsel has filed a reappeal under the name of a defense counsel, the reappeal has no effect as a lawful and effective reappeal (see Supreme Court Order 2003Mo429, Jan. 20, 2005, etc.).

According to the records, the re-appellant submitted a legal counsel appointment report only at the first instance court, and the lower court and the reappeal court did not submit a separate legal counsel appointment report, and the non-indicted law firm, the legal counsel of the first instance court, filed the reappeal on May 4, 2017 in its name.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the reappeal filed in the name of a defense counsel without submitting the report of appointment of a defense counsel within the statutory period is not valid, and thus, the reappeal of this case violates the legal method.

In addition, the re-appeal of this case cannot be effective for the above reasons, but the court below pointed out that the re-appeal of this case is effective only when the copy of the original decision of the court below was served to the head of the Suwon Detention Center because the re-appellant was at the time of receiving the copy of the original decision of the court below, and thus, it is not effective to serve the copy of the original decision of the court below on the former residence of the re-appellant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Mo14, Jun. 14, 1995; Supreme Court Order 2008Mo630, Aug. 20, 2009). Therefore, since the service becomes effective only when the copy of the original decision of the court below was served to the head of the Suwon Detention House,

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed under Articles 381 and 376(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)