The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court dismissed the instant appeal on the ground that the first instance court’s defense counsel did not submit the defense counsel appointment system and submitted the defense counsel appointment system only after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant precedents and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, the essence of an appeal filed against a defendant is to file an appeal against a lower court’s judgment, which is an objection against a judgment rendered by a lower court, which is favorable to the defendant by correcting a disadvantageous judgment against him/her, and thus, the defendant cannot have the right to file an appeal against it unless the judgment by a lower court is disadvantageous to him/her (see Supreme Court Order 87Do1702, Aug. 31, 1987, etc.). According to the records, although the defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the first instance judgment, the lower court dismissed the defendant’s appeal on the ground that the defendant did not submit the reason for appeal within the submission period due to legitimate grounds for appeal, and that the prosecutor dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal on the ground that the first instance

Therefore, as long as the part of the judgment dismissing an appeal by the court below on the grounds that the defendant did not submit a written reason for appeal is not illegal, the same as the case where the defendant did not appeal. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is merely dismissed, and it is nothing more than that of the public prosecutor's appeal, and it cannot be said that the defendant

Therefore, inasmuch as the lower judgment did not have the right to appeal against the Defendant, the final appeal disputing the determination of the amount of additional collection is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do2201, Apr. 10, 2014). Therefore, the final appeal is dismissed, and is involved.