The case holding that the reappeal was extended not later than the reappeal

If the re-appellant was at the time when he received the decision to dismiss the request for re-appeal, the physical distance between the Seoul High Court and the Seoul High Court to submit a Dong office and the reappeal was 308.9 kilometers, so the statutory period of an immediate appeal under the provisions of Article 67(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is extended for 10 days.

Article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 84Mo71 Decided March 28, 1986

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 85Ra3 decided September 27, 1985

The decision of dismissal of the immediate appeal by the court below shall be revoked.

The reappeal is dismissed.

1. According to the record, the re-appellant was served on September 16, 1985 on the ruling of dismissal of the appeal by the court of original judgment and filed a re-appeal 9.26 of the same year. The court of original judgment dismissed the re-appeal on the ground that the above re-appeal was filed after the termination of the right of appeal due to the 3th day of the statutory filing period of the immediate appeal

However, at September 16, 1985, when the re-appellant received the decision to dismiss the re-appeal, it is clear that it was crypted to the care and custody center for the first protective custody center for Cheongju as of September 16, 1985, and the physical distance with the Seoul High Court, which submitted the above location and re-appeal, was 308.9 kilometers for 308.9 kilometers for party members, and the statutory period of an immediate appeal under Article 67(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is extended for 10 days, so the above re-appeal filed in September 26, 1985 is a legitimate reappeal filed within the period of the immediate appeal. Therefore, the above decision of the court below as

2. Therefore, we judge the reappeal of this case.

It is reasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for retrial as it does not constitute any ground for retrial under Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the claimant did not commit a crime and there is sufficient evidence to prove the absence at that site, but the judgment subject to retrial violated the rules of evidence based on the false confession by the adviser at the police and did not examine the evidence requested by the claimant. Thus, the court below's ruling dismissing the request for retrial is just and it is clear that the grounds for appeal cannot be presented as a legitimate ground for reappeal in light of the provisions of Article 13 (11) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.

3. Therefore, the rejection of an immediate appeal by the court below shall be revoked, and the reappeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)