In cases where only the appellate brief is filed without filing a written appointment of counsel and the appellate brief is filed after the deadline for filing the written appointment of counsel, whether the appellate brief can be a legitimate and effective appellate brief (negative)

Articles 32(1), 379(1), and 380(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4839 Decided November 1, 2001 Supreme Court Decision 2010Mo1577 Decided December 14, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2012Do15128 Decided April 11, 2013

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm brightness, Attorney Choi Jae-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No1561 Decided September 19, 2014

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the appointment of a defense counsel shall be submitted in writing with the joint signature and seal of the defense counsel at each instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do15128, Apr. 11, 2013). Therefore, in a case where a defense counsel did not submit a written appointment of a defense counsel and only the appellate brief and submit a written appointment of a defense counsel after the lapse of the period for submitting the written statement of appointment,

According to the records, the defendant submitted a written appeal and served a notice of receipt of court records by the Supreme Court on October 10, 2014. However, the defendant's attorney at the court below submitted only the written appeal on October 28, 2014 when he did not submit a written appeal for appointment of counsel and submitted a written appeal for the court of final appeal on October 31, 2014 when he did not submit a written appeal for appointment of counsel. Thus, the above written appellate brief submitted by the counsel at the court below is not a document submitted by the person with authority and thus does not constitute a legitimate appellate brief. Meanwhile, the defendant did not submit the written appeal within the deadline for submission and did not state the grounds for appeal even in the written appeal. Accordingly, this constitutes grounds for appeal under the main sentence of Article 380

Furthermore, the court below's ex officio examination of the facts charged of this case's violation of the law of logic and experience is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the abandonment of duty, or in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the law of logic and experience

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

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)