The case holding that the notice of the receipt of a trial record sent by the defendant to his residence was unlawful immediately when it was impossible to serve the notice, although the defendant's office address was stated in the indictment

The case reversing the order of the court below that dismissed the appeal on the ground that the period for submission of the appellate brief was expired immediately after service by public notice of the notification of the receipt of the trial record sent by the defendant for his/her residence, although the defendant's office address

Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Re-appellant

Attorney Kim-ju et al.

Seoul District Court Order 96No6948 Dated May 28, 1996

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds for reappeal.

According to the records, when the court below receives the notification of the receipt of the notification of the defendant's domicile, it stated the defendant's address as "24-265 "Seoul Gangseo-dong 24-265" or "Seoul Gangseo-gu 24-265-dong, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul" and sent the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the post two times. When it is impossible to serve the notification on the defendant on March 11, 1996, it decided to serve the notice on the defendant on March 11, 1996 and served the notice on the defendant on May 28 of the same year after serving the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial, and the defendant was not filed within the fixed period from the effective date of service by public notice, and there is no statement of the grounds for appeal in the petition of

However, in the criminal procedure, service by public notice to the defendant can be conducted only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown (Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and according to the written indictment of this case, the defendant's office is clearly known in the records, since the defendant's office is operated in the "Yeongdong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul" (hereinafter referred to as the "Seongdong, Gangseo-gu, Seoul"). Thus, even if it is impossible to serve a written notification of the receipt of the public notice sent in the above dwelling, the court below should serve the written notification of the receipt of the public notice sent by public notice on the ground that it is impossible to serve the written notification of the receipt of the public notice sent in the above dwelling, but it is illegal to serve it by public notice on the ground that it is not possible to serve the written notification of the receipt of the public notice of the public notice of the public notice of the trial on the ground that it is in excess

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)