Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Duty to reappoint counsel when appointed appellate counsel misses the brief
Supreme Court, July 10, 2019, 2019Do4221 (judgment)
Case name: 아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(강요행위등)·아동·청소년의성보호에관한법률위반(알선영업행위등)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where neither the defendant nor the court-appointed appellate counsel filed a statement of grounds of appeal within the statutory period, and the defendant then retained private counsel before any reappointment, must the appellate court give that counsel a fresh chance to file rather than dismiss the appeal?
Holding
It was. Appointed counsel's failure to file is a failure to give the assistance the defendant requires, so where no reason to blame the defendant appears, the appellate court must cancel the appointment, appoint new counsel and serve the record again so that the new counsel may file within the period in Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; dismissing the appeal under Article 361-4(1) would run against the constitutional guarantee of the right to assistance of counsel. The same rule applies to private counsel retained by the defendant before those steps, and a minor's withdrawal of appeal had no effect because the father, one of the legal representatives, did not consent, so counsel had to file and the minor's act alone does not amount to fault.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 피고인과 국선변호인이 모두 법정기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하였더라도, 국선변호인이 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니한 데 대하여 피고인에게 귀책사유가 있음이 특별히 밝혀지지 않는 한, 항소법원은 종전 국선변호인의 선정을 취소하고 새로운 국선변호인을 선정하여 다시 소송기록접수통지를 함으로써 새로운 변호인으로 하여금 그 통지를 받은 때로부터 형사소송법 제361조의3 제1항의 기간 내에 피고인을 위하여 항소이유서를 제출하도록 하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, even though neither the defendant nor the appointed counsel submitted a statement of reasons for appeal within the statutory period, unless it is particularly revealed that the defendant is subject to an attributable cause with respect to the appointed counsel's failure to submit a statement of reasons for appeal, the appellate court must revoke the appointment of the previous appointed counsel, appoint a new appointed counsel, and give a fresh notice of receipt of the case record, thereby causing the new counsel to submit a statement of reasons for appeal on behalf of the defendant within the period under Article 361-3 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act from the time of receiving such notice.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
국선변호인이 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니한 데 대하여 피고인에게 귀책사유가 있음이 특별히 밝혀지지 않는 한
Unofficial English translation
unless it is particularly revealed that the defendant is subject to an attributable cause with respect to the appointed counsel's failure to submit a statement of reasons for appeal
Factors
- 국선변호인이 항소이유서 제출기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하면 이는 피고인을 위하여 요구되는 충분한 조력을 제공하지 아니한 것으로 보아야 하고
- 피고인에게 책임을 돌릴 만한 아무런 사유가 없음에도
- 국선변호인이 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니한 데 대하여 피고인에게 귀책사유가 있음이 특별히 밝혀지지 않는 한
- 피고인 스스로 변호인을 선임한 경우 그 사선변호인에 대하여도 마찬가지로 적용되어야 한다
- 미성년자로서 필요적으로 변호인의 조력을 받아야 하는 피고인이 위와 같이 법정대리인의 동의 없이 항소취하서를 제출하였다는 사정만으로
Unofficial English translation
• If the appointed counsel does not submit a statement of reasons for appeal within the period for submitting a statement of reasons for appeal, this must be regarded as a failure to provide sufficient assistance required for the defendant, and
• notwithstanding that there is no ground whatsoever for holding the defendant responsible,
• unless it is particularly revealed that the defendant is subject to an attributable cause with respect to the appointed counsel's failure to submit a statement of reasons for appeal,
• where the defendant retained counsel himself or herself, the same must apply to such privately retained counsel as well
• the mere circumstance that the defendant, a minor who is required to receive the assistance of counsel, submitted the notice of withdrawal of appeal as aforesaid without the consent of the legal representative,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 2. 16. 자 2009모1044 전원합의체 결정(공2012상, 480)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Mo1044, en banc decision, decided February 16, 2012 (Gong 2012 Sang, 480)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2012. 2. 16. 자 2009모1044 전원합의체 결정(공2012상, 480)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What conduct of the defendant or its legal representatives must be shown before the failure of appointed counsel to file the statement of grounds is held to be the defendant's fault?
The Seoul High Court's remand judgment will show how the new chance to file is given in practice, and how fault is assessed on that record. A later decision treating a defendant's conduct as fault, or an amendment to Article 361-3(1) or Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, would require this entry to be read again.
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 High Court, in its judgment of 22 March 2019 (2018No3529), dismissed the defendant's appeal. It reasoned that the appointed counsel's failure to file the statement of grounds was partly the fault of the defendant and of the mother, who had filed the withdrawal of appeal and the document consenting to it, so there was no need to serve the privately retained counsel afresh, and that the brief filed by that counsel was filed outside the statutory period.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that a defendant with legal representatives may withdraw an appeal only with their consent, given in a filed document, under Article 350 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 153(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, and since the father had not consented, the withdrawal was ineffective, so the appointed counsel had to file the brief. A minor who must necessarily be assisted by counsel cannot be blamed merely for having filed a withdrawal without a representative's consent. The court below, by leaving the private counsel unserved and dismissing the appeal at once, misread the constitutional and statutory law on the right to the assistance of counsel, and the whole judgment was reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which fault on the defendant for appointed counsel's failure to file is specially established, since the duty to reappoint arises only where no such fault appears.
- A withdrawal of appeal that is effective because every legal representative consented to it, so that no statement of grounds was required of counsel.
- Private counsel retained only after the appellate court cancelled the appointment, appointed new counsel and served the record, since the rule the Court extended covers retention before those steps.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the appeal withdrawal took effect, by asking whether every legal representative consented and filed the consent, since that decides whether counsel had to file at all. Then look for material showing fault on the defendant's side for counsel's missing the deadline, and set against the file the date the private counsel received the notice of record receipt, because the period in Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act runs from that date.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 피고인과 국선변호인이 모두 법정기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하였으나 국선변호인이 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니한 데 대하여 피고인에게 귀책사유가 없는 경우, 항소법원이 취하여야 할 조치 / 이러한 법리는 항소법원이 종전 국선변호인의 선정을 취소하고 새로운 국선변호인을 선정하여 소송기록접수통지를 하기 이전에 피고인 스스로 선임한 사선변호인에 대하여도 마찬가지로 적용되는지 여부(적극) [2] 미성년자인 피고인이 제1심판결에 불복하여 항소하였다가 항소취하서를 제출하며 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하였고, 피고인의 법정대리인 중 어머니가 항소취하에 동의하는 취지의 서면을 제출하였으나 아버지는 항소취하 동의서를 제출하지 아니하였는데, 원심이 국선변호인을 선정하여 소송기록접수통지를 하였음에도 국선변호인이 항소이유서 제출기간 만료일까지 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하자 피고인의 어머니가 사선변호인을 선임한 사안에서, 국선변호인의 선정을 취소하고 사선변호인에게 다시 소송기록접수통지를 하여 사선변호인으로 하여금 법정기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출할 수 있도록 기회를 주지 아니한 채 곧바로 피고인의 항소를 기각한 원심판결에 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where neither the defendant nor the appointed counsel submitted a statement of reasons for appeal within the statutory period, the measures that the appellate court should take where the defendant is not subject to an attributable cause with respect to the appointed counsel's failure to submit a statement of reasons for appeal / whether such legal principle likewise applies to a privately retained counsel whom the defendant himself or herself retained before the appellate court revoked the appointment of the previous appointed counsel and appointed a new appointed counsel to give the notice of receipt of the case record (affirmative) [2] In a case where the defendant, a minor, appealed the judgment of the court of first instance and then submitted a notice of withdrawal of appeal without submitting a statement of reasons for appeal, and, among the defendant's legal representatives, the mother submitted a written document signifying her consent to the withdrawal of the appeal but the father did not submit a written consent to the withdrawal of the appeal, and where, even though the court below appointed appointed counsel and gave the notice of receipt of the case record, the appointed counsel did not submit a statement of reasons for appeal by the date of expiration of the period for submitting a statement of reasons for appeal and the defendant's mother therefore retained a privately retained counsel, a case in which it was held that the judgment of the court below, which immediately dismissed the defendant's appeal without revoking the appointment of the appointed counsel and giving a fresh notice of receipt of the case record to the privately retained counsel so as to afford the privately retained counsel an opportunity to submit a statement of reasons for appeal on behalf of the defendant within the statutory period, was in misapprehension of legal principles
Summary of the holding
[1] 피고인을 위하여 선정된 국선변호인이 항소이유서 제출기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하면 이는 피고인을 위하여 요구되는 충분한 조력을 제공하지 아니한 것으로 보아야 하고, 이런 경우에 피고인에게 책임을 돌릴 만한 아무런 사유가 없음에도 항소법원이 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 본문에 따라 피고인의 항소를 기각한다면, 이는 피고인에게 국선변호인으로부터 충분한 조력을 받을 권리를 보장하고 이를 위한 국가의 의무를 규정하고 있는 헌법의 취지에 반하는 조치이다. 따라서 피고인과 국선변호인이 모두 법정기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하였더라도, 국선변호인이 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니한 데 대하여 피고인에게 귀책사유가 있음이 특별히 밝혀지지 않는 한, 항소법원은 종전 국선변호인의 선정을 취소하고 새로운 국선변호인을 선정하여 다시 소송기록접수통지를 함으로써 새로운 변호인으로 하여금 그 통지를 받은 때로부터 형사소송법 제361조의3 제1항의 기간 내에 피고인을 위하여 항소이유서를 제출하도록 하여야 한다. 그리고 이러한 법리는 항소법원이 종전 국선변호인의 선정을 취소하고 새로운 국선변호인을 선정하여 소송기록접수통지를 하기 이전에 피고인 스스로 변호인을 선임한 경우 그 사선변호인에 대하여도 마찬가지로 적용되어야 한다. [2] 미성년자인 피고인이 제1심판결에 불복하여 항소하였다가 항소취하서를 제출하며 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하였고, 피고인의 법정대리인 중 어머니가 항소취하에 동의하는 취지의 서면을 제출하였으나 아버지는 항소취하 동의서를 제출하지 아니하였는데, 원심이 국선변호인을 선정하여 소송기록접수통지를 하였음에도 국선변호인이 항소이유서 제출기간 만료일까지 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하자 피고인의 어머니가 사선변호인을 선임한 사안에서, 피고인이 항소취하서를 제출하였으나 법정대리인인 피고인 아버지의 동의가 없었으므로 항소취하는 효력이 없고, 따라서 국선변호인은 항소이유서 제출기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하여야 함에도 법정기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 아니하였으므로, 미성년자로서 필요적으로 변호인의 조력을 받아야 하는 피고인이 위와 같이 법정대리인의 동의 없이 항소취하서를 제출하였다는 사정만으로 국선변호인이 항소이유서 제출기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 않은 것에 대하여 피고인에게 귀책사유가 있다고 볼 수 없는데도, 이와 달리 보아 국선변호인의 선정을 취소하고 사선변호인에게 다시 소송기록접수통지를 하여 사선변호인으로 하여금 그 통지를 받은 때로부터 형사소송법 제361조의3 제1항의 기간 내에 피고인을 위하여 항소이유서를 제출할 수 있도록 기회를 주지 아니한 채 곧바로 피고인의 항소를 기각한 원심판결에 국선변호인의 조력을 받을 권리에 관한 헌법 및 형사소송법의 법리를 오해한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 헌법 제12조 제4항, 형사소송법 제361조의3 제1항, 제361조의4 제1항 [2] 헌법 제12조 제4항, 형사소송법 제33조 제1항, 제350조, 제361조의3 제1항, 제361조의4 제1항, 형사소송규칙 제153조 제1항
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