[1] Whether Article 344(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for a special rule for prisoners in the submission of a written appeal may apply mutatis mutandis to the submission of the written reason for appeal (affirmative)

[2] The case which corrected the above dismissal ruling on the ground that the special rule on the defendant's appeal is not applied mutatis mutandis to the submission of the written reason for appeal

[1] Articles 344(1), 355, 430, and 490(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 344(1), 355, 400, 430, and 490(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do9729 Decided March 16, 2006 (2006Sang, 702)

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2003No2723, 2004No251 decided July 8, 2004

As to this case, the decision made on August 31, 2004 by a party member shall be corrected as follows. The appeal shall be dismissed. 45 days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The decision ex officio is made (the defendant's request for correction has passed the period).

1. Article 344(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides a special rule for a so-called prisoner who has a prison or detention house to the head of the prison or detention house or his/her deputy within the period for filing an appeal, and recognizes the exception of the principle of arrival of the court in the written appeal. The purpose of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for convenience in filing an appeal to a prisoner, and where the defendant is treated as having failed to submit a written reason for appeal on the ground that he/she was delivered to the court after the lapse of the period even though he/she submitted the written reason for appeal to the head of the prison or detention house, it is reasonable to interpret the special rule for the above prisoner as applicable mutatis mutandis to the submission of the written reason for appeal (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do9729, Mar. 16, 2006).

2. According to the records, the defendant, who was detained in the Daejeon Prison, was served with the notification of the Supreme Court on August 2, 2004 on the notification of the receipt of the notification of the trial records on August 20, 2004, and was served with the prison officer around the same month, and the appellate brief sent by mail was sent to the Supreme Court at around 14:00 on the 23th of the same month following the expiration date of the submission period (the first day is added pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure), and the Supreme Court deemed that the special rule of the defendant was not applied to the submission of the written reason for appeal, and thus dismissed the defendant's appeal on the ground that "the defendant did not submit the appellate brief within the submission period and did not contain any statement in the grounds for appeal" (the decision subject to correction of this case). Accordingly, it is recognized that the defendant filed an application with the Supreme Court on September 20, 2004.

According to the above legal principles (in this case, the changed opinion of the Supreme Court shall apply to the case where the defendant filed an application for remedy of rights by asserting the illegality of the previous precedents prior to the revision of the Supreme Court en banc Decision as seen earlier), since the appellate brief submitted by the defendant to a correctional officer of the Daejeon Correctional Institution within the deadline for submitting the appellate brief shall be deemed legitimate within the deadline, the appellate brief submitted by the defendant to the correctional officer of the Daejeon Correctional Institution is deemed legitimate. Therefore, since there is an error in the contents stipulated in Article 400 of

3. The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged that the defendant committed an act of forging and exercising one copy of the financial guarantee agreement in the name of non-indicted 1 without the consent, and the non-indicted 2's agent qualification as proxy is not authorized to represent the non-indicted 2, and there is no illegality in finding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)