(a) Whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning supplementary service are applied mutatis mutandis in the criminal procedure and the number and delivery capacity of the receiver;

(b) A case where a woman has a capability to serve on his child for a period of eight years and four months;

A. Under Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 172(1) of the Civil Procedure Act concerning supplementary service shall apply mutatis mutandis to criminal proceedings. As such, as long as documents are delivered to the defendant's living together and the defendant's living together with his/her family members are capable of changing his/her judgment, service is effective even in cases where the defendant was unaware of the contents of the documents. Thus, in order to have the intelligence to change his/her judgment, it is necessary to understand the purport of service and deliver the received documents to the receiver, even if there is no need to understand the validity of the general judicial system or procedural acts.

(b) The case holding that even though it is not possible to view that a woman's child was understood to have understood the validity of the criminal procedure during the period of the service due to the service, there is the ability to understand the purport of the service itself and to expect the delivery of the documents to his father who is the recipient.

Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 172(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Order 80Nu357 delivered on October 14, 1980, dated Sep. 19, 1963; Supreme Court Order 68Ma336 delivered on May 7, 1968 (No 16Du8)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-su

Seoul Criminal Court Order 94No6461 Dated February 24, 1995

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Article 172 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act concerning supplementary service shall apply mutatis mutandis to criminal proceedings pursuant to Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Order 63Da33, Sept. 19, 1963). Thus, as long as documents are delivered to the family living together with the defendant and the family living together with him/her are intelligent to change the contents of the documents, service shall be effective even if the defendant was unaware of the contents of the documents. Thus, in order for the defendant to have an intelligence to change the contents of the documents, it is not necessary to understand the purpose of service and deliver the received documents to the receiver even if there is no need to understand the validity of the general judicial system or litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu357, Oct. 14, 1980).

According to the records, on November 30, 1994, the defendant (re-appellant) was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, etc., and filed an appeal on December 2, 1992 of the same year, and the defendant did not submit the appellate brief within the period for submission of the appellate brief, which is calculated from the time when the defendant was served on December 31 of the same year, and the court below decided to dismiss the defendant's appeal on February 24, 1995. According to the above notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the case, the notification is deemed to have been received by the non-indicted who is his father. The non-indicted can be recognized as having been the age remaining 8 years and 4 years old at the time of the receipt of the above documents, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's father and the non-indicted's father were not entitled to receive the notification of the notification of the notification of the receipt of the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the notification of the defendant.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)