All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. According to the records on the Defendant’s appeal, the Defendant filed an appeal on December 10, 2015, and received the notice of receipt of the records of trial on January 5, 2016, but failed to submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days, which is the submission period for the statement of grounds for appeal prescribed in Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the petition of appeal does not state the grounds for appeal, and there is no ground for ex officio examination on the records [the Defendant requested the appointment of the national defense counsel on April 8, 2016, which is after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, and accordingly, submitted the statement of grounds for appeal on May 3, 2016, after receiving the notice of receipt of the records belonging to the national defense counsel selected by the court on April 18, 2016.

However, in a case other than necessary attorney-at-law, where the defendant requested the appointment of a national defense counsel pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act only after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, and the court decided to appoint a national defense counsel, it is not necessary to give notice of the record of trial to the national defense counsel, and even if the defendant notified the national defense counsel of the same fact.

Even if an appeal is filed by a national defense counsel, the period for filing an appeal shall be calculated from the date the defendant is notified of the receipt of the records of trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4114, Jun. 27, 2013). Therefore, the argument in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted by a national defense counsel in the instant case is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. A national defense counsel did not say that “the Defendant committed suicide due to F’s pre-use denial” at the marriage ceremony of the victim F (hereinafter “victim”) through the statement of reasons for appeal submitted by the Defendant. However, the lower court argued to the effect that the Defendant erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s marriage hall is the victim’s child.