Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Reopening argument when appellate reasons arrive within the filing period
Supreme Court, Nov. 29, 2018, 2018Do12896 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)·도로교통법위반(무면허운전)·마약류관리에관한법률위반(대마)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May an appellate court decide a case before the period for submitting appellate reasons has expired, and where argument closed within that period and reasons were filed within it afterwards, must the appellate court reopen the argument and hear the grounds stated in them?
Holding
No, and in principle yes. Because the appellate structure is to adjudicate on the appellate reasons filed within the statutory period, and grounds may still be added, changed or withdrawn, the court may not decide the case before that period expires. Unless there are special circumstances, where reasons are filed within the period after argument has closed, the court must reopen the argument and hear the grounds; a document filed in time whose content in substance amounts to an appellate ground lawfully adds a new ground.
Points at issue, verbatim
항소이유서 제출기간 내에 변론이 종결되었는데 그 후 위 제출기간 내에 항소이유서가 제출된 경우, 항소심법원은 변론을 재개하여 항소이유 주장에 대해 심리를 하여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where oral argument was concluded within the period for filing a statement of reasons for appeal and a statement of reasons for appeal was filed within that period thereafter, whether the appellate court must reopen oral argument and examine the contentions raised in the reasons for appeal (in principle, affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of Seoul Southern District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
특별한 사정이 없는 한 항소심법원은 변론을 재개하여 항소이유 주장에 대해서도 심리를 해 보아야 한다
Unofficial English translation
Unless there are special circumstances, the appellate court must reopen oral argument and examine the contentions raised in the reasons for appeal as well
Factors
- 항소이유서 제출기간이 경과하기 전에 항소사건을 심판할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
- 항소이유서 제출기간 내에 변론이 종결되었는데
- 그 후 위 제출기간 내에 항소이유서가 제출된 경우
- 항소심법원은 변론을 재개하여 항소이유 주장에 대해 심리를 하여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
• Whether an appeal case may be adjudicated before the period for filing a statement of reasons for appeal has elapsed (negative)
• Where oral argument was concluded within the period for filing a statement of reasons for appeal
• and a statement of reasons for appeal was filed within that period thereafter,
• whether the appellate court must reopen oral argument and examine the contentions raised in the reasons for appeal (in principle, affirmative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2015. 4. 9. 선고 2015도1466 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1466 decided April 9, 2015
Decisions referred to
대법원 2004. 6. 25. 선고 2004도2611 판결(공2004하, 1295), 대법원 2007. 1. 25. 선고 2006도8591 판결, 대법원 2015. 4. 9. 선고 2015도1466 판결(공2015상, 713), 대법원 2018. 4. 12. 선고 2017도13748 판결(공2018상, 939)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances are special enough to excuse the appellate court from reopening the argument after grounds are added within the filing period?
A later Supreme Court decision defining the special circumstances that excuse reopening argument, or the content a filing must have to count as an appellate ground, would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 361-3 or Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Southern District Court, in its judgment of 19 July 2018 (2018No141, 2018No799), merged the second case into the first on 24 May 2018. The defendant and his assigned counsel stated in open court that the ground of appeal was excessive sentence, the argument was closed the same day, and judgment was set for 12 July 2018. After the defendant filed a document headed 'Petition and Letter of Remorse' on 28 May 2018 raising new objections to procedural illegality, the court below postponed the sentencing date and delivered judgment on 19 July 2018 without holding a hearing to let the defendant argue.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the appellate court may not try the case before the period for submitting appellate reasons expires, and that the document filed on 28 May 2018 was in substance an appellate ground, so it lawfully added a new ground within the period ending 12 June 2018. Because no hearing showed that this added ground had been examined, the court below should in principle have reopened the argument. Delivering judgment without giving the defendant that opportunity was an illegality, caused by a misapprehension of the law on the filing period and the reopening of argument, that affected the judgment, so the whole judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the collegial panel of the same court, the review of the appeal grounds being omitted.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which no appellate reason is filed within the statutory period, so that nothing has been added after the argument closed.
- A document filed in time whose content does not in substance amount to an appellate ground, so that no new ground has lawfully been added.
- A case in which the appellate court, after the document was filed, held a hearing and gave the party an opportunity to argue on the added grounds, so that an actual hearing removed the need to reopen.
Record verification notes
Before relying on this decision, fix the date on which the notice of receipt of the record was served and count the twenty days from it, since the whole holding turns on whether the filing fell inside that window. Then read the document filed in time and ask whether its content in substance amounts to an appellate ground, as the Court found for the petition and letter of remorse here. Finally check whether the appellate court held any hearing after the filing, since that bears on whether there were special circumstances.
From the official text
Points at issue
항소이유서 제출기간이 경과하기 전에 항소사건을 심판할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 항소이유서 제출기간 내에 변론이 종결되었는데 그 후 위 제출기간 내에 항소이유서가 제출된 경우, 항소심법원은 변론을 재개하여 항소이유 주장에 대해 심리를 하여야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether an appeal case may be adjudicated before the period for filing a statement of reasons for appeal has elapsed (negative) / Where oral argument was concluded within the period for filing a statement of reasons for appeal and a statement of reasons for appeal was filed within that period thereafter, whether the appellate court must reopen oral argument and examine the contentions raised in the reasons for appeal (in principle, affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울남부지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of Seoul Southern District Court.
Provisions referred to
형사소송법 제361조의3, 제364조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger