Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
A ground for ex officio review arising when a separate conviction becomes final
Supreme Court, Apr. 3, 2026, 2026Mo510 (ruling)
Case name: 항소기각결정에대한재항고[항소이유서 미제출에 따른 항소기각의 결정을 다투는 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Must the appellate court, even where the appellant filed no grounds of appeal within the time limit, hear the appeal itself and reverse the first-instance judgment when a ground for ex officio review exists, including where a separate conviction of imprisonment or heavier on the same defendant became final while the appeal was pending?
Holding
Yes. Under the proviso to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act the appellate court may not dismiss the appeal merely for want of timely grounds; a ground for ex officio review is a reason the court must examine of its own motion, such as an error of statutory application or interpretation. Where several offences of the same defendant, prosecuted and sentenced separately, stand in a relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act because a conviction of imprisonment or heavier became final while one case was on appeal, the appellate court must reverse and apply the sentencing treatment for concurrent crimes.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 이와 같은 피고인이 해당 사건에 대하여 적법한 기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 않았다고 하더라도, 항소심법원은 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 단서, 제364조 제2항에 따라 제1심판결을 파기하고 피고인에게 형법 제37조 후단의 경합범에 관한 처벌례를 적용하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, even where the defendant fails to submit the written statement of reasons for appeal for the relevant case within the lawful period, the appellate court must, pursuant to the proviso to Article 361-4 (1) and Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, reverse the judgment of first instance and apply to the defendant the rule for punishment of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 대구지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 직권조사사유란 법령적용이나 법령해석의 착오 여부 등 당사자가 주장하지 아니한 경우에도 법원이 직권으로 조사하여야 할 사유를 말한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, grounds for ex officio investigation means grounds on which the court must make investigation ex officio, such as whether there is an error in the application or interpretation of statutes or regulations, even where the parties do not raise the issue.
Factors
- 항소인이 항소이유서를 그 제출기간 내에 제출하지 아니한 경우에도 직권조사사유가 있는 때에는
- 법령적용이나 법령해석의 착오 여부 등 당사자가 주장하지 아니한 경우에도 법원이 직권으로 조사하여야 할 사유를 말한다
- 금고 이상의 형에 처한 다른 사건의 판결이 별개의 절차에서 확정되었다면
- 형법 제39조 제1항에 따라 이를 동시에 판결할 경우와의 형평을 고려하여 형을 선고하고
- 이 경우 형의 감경 또는 면제 여부까지 검토한 후에 형을 정하여야 하므로
Unofficial English translation
• Even where an appellant fails to submit the written statement of reasons for appeal within the period for its submission, when grounds for ex officio investigation exist,
• this means grounds on which the court must make investigation ex officio, such as whether there is an error in the application or interpretation of statutes or regulations, even where the parties do not raise the issue
• if the judgment in another case in which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment or a heavier penalty has become final and conclusive in separate proceedings,
• a sentence must be imposed in consideration of equity with the case in which the offenses are to be judged simultaneously pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and
• in such a case, the sentence must be determined after even reviewing whether the sentence should be mitigated or exempted, and therefore
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2003. 5. 16. 자 2002모338 결정(공2003하, 1549), 대법원 2006. 3. 30. 자 2005모564 결정(공2006상, 777), 대법원 2021. 6. 18. 자 2021모1259 결정
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2002Mo338 decided May 16, 2003 (Gong 2003 Ha, 1549), Supreme Court Decision 2005Mo564 decided March 30, 2006 (Gong 2006 Sang, 777), Supreme Court Decision 2021Mo1259 decided June 18, 2021
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2003. 5. 16. 자 2002모338 결정(공2003하, 1549), 대법원 2006. 3. 30. 자 2005모564 결정(공2006상, 777), 대법원 2021. 6. 18. 자 2021모1259 결정 / [2] 대법원 2020. 5. 18. 자 2020모1425 결정, 대법원 2021. 5. 21. 자 2021모944 결정, 대법원 2023. 11. 24. 자 2023모1836 결정
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a separate conviction becomes final only after the appellate ruling dismissing the appeal has itself become final, does a ground for ex officio review still arise?
The remand judgment of the Daegu District Court, once it sets a sentence applying the sentencing treatment for concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, will show how that treatment works in practice. A later Supreme Court decision narrowing the scope of a ground for ex officio review, or an amendment to Article 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a separate conviction becomes final only after the appellate ruling dismissing the appeal has itself become final, does a ground for ex officio review still arise?” vs Independent “What sentence, including any mitigation or exemption, should be imposed on remand after considering equity with simultaneous adjudication?”
The primary asks whether a ground for review still arises when the separate conviction becomes final only after the dismissal ruling is final, while the independent asks what sentence should be imposed on remand.
따라서 이와 같은 피고인이 해당 사건에 대하여 적법한 기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 않았다고 하더라도, 항소심법원은 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 단서, 제364조 제2항에 따라 제1심판결을 파기하고 피고인에게 형법 제37조 후단의 경합범에 관한 처벌례를 적용하여야 한다.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 Daegu District Court, in its ruling of 5 January 2026 (2025No3937), dismissed the defendant's appeal under Articles 361-4(1) and 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It reasoned that the defendant had been lawfully served with the notice of receipt of the record yet filed no grounds of appeal in time, that the notice of appeal stated no grounds, and that the file disclosed no ground for ex officio review.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that a ground for ex officio review had afterwards arisen. The appellate judgment in the separate fraud case (Daegu District Court 2025No1415), which imposed six months of imprisonment on 21 August 2025, became final on 7 November 2025 when the defendant withdrew his appeal, during the pendency of this appeal, so the fraud committed on 29 May and 12 June 2024 entered a relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. The court below should have reversed under the proviso to Article 361-4(1) and Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and applied the sentencing treatment for concurrent crimes; its dismissal breached that proviso in a way affecting the adjudication, so the ruling was reversed and the case remanded by unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which no separate conviction of imprisonment or heavier became final while the appeal was pending, so that the offences never entered a relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
- A case in which the first-instance judgment itself weighed the fairness with sentencing under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and examined whether the sentence should be reduced or remitted, so that the omission the Court relied on did not occur.
- A case in which, after a hearing held ex officio, no statutory ground of appeal is found, since reversal follows only where the court holds that a statutory ground of appeal exists.
Record verification notes
Establish from the file exactly when the separate judgment became final and which charge in which case it covers, since the Court relied on its finality during the pendency of this appeal. Then look for any other ground of ex officio review, because the duty to hear the case does not rest on the concurrent-crime point alone. Keep the first-instance fine of KRW 10,000,000 on this fraud separate from the imprisonment imposed in the other case.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 항소인이 항소이유서를 그 제출기간 내에 제출하지 아니한 경우에도 직권조사사유가 있는 때에는 항소법원은 항소기각 결정을 하여서는 아니 되고 직권으로 심리하여 법정의 항소이유가 있다고 인정하는 때에는 원심판결을 파기하여야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 ‘직권조사사유’의 의미 [2] 동일한 피고인에 대한 수 개의 범죄사실 중 일부에 대하여 먼저 공소가 제기되고 나머지 범죄사실에 대하여 별도로 공소가 제기됨으로써 이를 심리한 각 제1심법원이 공소제기된 사건별로 별개의 형을 선고하였는데, 이 중 어느 한 사건이 항소심법원에 계속되는 동안에 금고 이상의 형에 처한 다른 사건의 판결이 별개의 절차에서 확정된 경우, 항소심법원은 직권으로 제1심판결을 파기하고 피고인에게 형법 제37조 후단의 경합범에 관한 처벌례를 적용하여야 하는지 여부(적극) [3] 피고인은 사기의 범죄사실로 제1심에서 벌금형을 받고 항소하였는데, 공소장과 증거에 의하면 피고인이 별건 사기죄로 제1심에서 징역형을 선고받아 항소심 계속 중이고, 별건 사기죄에 대하여 징역형을 선고한 판결이 사기의 범죄사실에 대한 항소심인 원심 계속 중 확정됨으로써 별건 사기죄의 판결 확정 전에 범한 사기의 범죄사실이 별건 사기죄와 형법 제37조 후단의 경합범 관계에 있게 된 사안에서, 제1심판결에 사후적으로 직권조사사유가 발생하였으므로, 피고인이 적법한 기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 않았더라도 원심은 직권으로 제1심판결을 파기하고 피고인에게 형법 제37조 후단의 경합범에 관한 처벌례를 적용하였어야 한다는 이유로, 이와 달리 직권조사사유가 없다는 이유로 항소기각 결정을 한 원심의 조치에 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Even where an appellant fails to submit the written statement of reasons for appeal within the period for its submission, whether, when grounds for ex officio investigation exist, the appellate court must not render a decision dismissing the appeal and must, if upon ex officio examination it finds that there are statutory grounds for appeal, reverse the judgment of the court below (affirmative), and the meaning of 'grounds for ex officio investigation' at that time [2] Where, among several criminal facts charged against the same defendant, a public prosecution was first brought as to some of them and a separate public prosecution was brought as to the remaining criminal facts, so that the respective courts of first instance that tried them imposed separate sentences for each case in which the public prosecution was brought, and while one of those cases is pending before the appellate court the judgment in another case in which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment or a heavier penalty becomes final and conclusive in separate proceedings, whether the appellate court must, ex officio, reverse the judgment of first instance and apply to the defendant the rule for punishment of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (affirmative) [3] In a case where the defendant was sentenced to a fine at first instance for the criminal facts of fraud and appealed, and the bill of indictment and the evidence showed that the defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at first instance in a separate case for the offense of fraud and that the appeal therefrom was pending, and where the judgment sentencing the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for the offense of fraud in the separate case became final and conclusive while the appeal, which is the court below as to the criminal facts of fraud, was still pending, as a result of which the criminal facts of fraud, which had been committed before the judgment in the separate case for the offense of fraud became final and conclusive, stood in a relationship of concurrent crimes with the offense of fraud in the separate case under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, holding that grounds for ex officio investigation had arisen ex post facto in the judgment of first instance, so that even though the defendant failed to submit the written statement of reasons for appeal within the lawful period, the court below should have, ex officio, reversed the judgment of first instance and applied to the defendant the rule for punishment of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a case holding that the court below erred in its measure of dismissing the appeal on the ground, contrary to the foregoing, that no grounds for ex officio investigation existed
Summary of the holding
[1] 항소인이 항소이유서를 그 제출기간 내에 제출하지 아니한 경우에도 직권조사사유가 있는 때에는 항소법원은 항소기각의 결정을 하여서는 아니 되고 직권으로 심리하여 법정의 항소이유가 있다고 인정하는 때에는 원심판결을 파기하여야 하는바(형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 단서), 여기서 직권조사사유란 법령적용이나 법령해석의 착오 여부 등 당사자가 주장하지 아니한 경우에도 법원이 직권으로 조사하여야 할 사유를 말한다. [2] 동일한 피고인에 대한 수 개의 범죄사실 중 일부에 대하여 먼저 공소가 제기되고 나머지 범죄사실에 대하여 별도로 공소가 제기됨으로써 이를 심리한 각 제1심법원이 공소제기된 사건별로 별개의 형을 선고하였는데, 이 중 어느 한 사건이 항소심법원에 계속되는 동안에 금고 이상의 형에 처한 다른 사건의 판결이 별개의 절차에서 확정되었다면, 그 수 개의 범죄는 형법 제37조 후단의 경합범 관계에 있게 되므로 항소심법원은 형법 제39조 제1항에 따라 이를 동시에 판결할 경우와의 형평을 고려하여 형을 선고하고 이 경우 형의 감경 또는 면제 여부까지 검토한 후에 형을 정하여야 하므로, 이러한 조치를 취하지 아니한 해당 제1심판결에는 사후적으로 직권조사사유가 발생하였다고 보아야 한다. 따라서 이와 같은 피고인이 해당 사건에 대하여 적법한 기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 않았다고 하더라도, 항소심법원은 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 단서, 제364조 제2항에 따라 제1심판결을 파기하고 피고인에게 형법 제37조 후단의 경합범에 관한 처벌례를 적용하여야 한다. [3] 피고인은 사기의 범죄사실로 제1심에서 벌금형을 받고 항소하였는데, 공소장과 증거에 의하면 피고인이 별건 사기죄로 제1심에서 징역형을 선고받아 항소심 계속 중이고, 별건 사기죄에 대하여 징역형을 선고한 판결이 사기의 범죄사실에 대한 항소심인 원심 계속 중 확정됨으로써 별건 사기죄의 판결 확정 전에 범한 사기의 범죄사실이 별건 사기죄와 형법 제37조 후단의 경합범 관계에 있게 된 사안에서, 원심은 형법 제39조 제1항에 따라 이를 동시에 판결할 경우와의 형평을 고려하여 형을 선고하고 이 경우 형의 감경 또는 면제 여부까지 검토한 후에 형을 정하여야 하므로, 이러한 조치를 취하지 아니한 제1심판결에는 사후적으로 직권조사사유가 발생하였고, 따라서 피고인이 적법한 기간 내에 항소이유서를 제출하지 않았더라도 원심은 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 단서, 제364조 제2항에 따라 제1심판결을 파기하고 피고인에게 형법 제37조 후단의 경합범에 관한 처벌례를 적용하였어야 한다는 이유로, 이와 달리 직권조사사유가 없다는 이유로 항소기각의 결정을 한 원심의 조치에 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 단서를 위반한 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심결정을 파기하고, 사건을 대구지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형사소송법 제361조의4 제1항 / [2] 형법 제37조, 제39조 제1항, 형사소송법 제361조의3 제1항, 제361조의4 제1항, 제364조 제2항 / [3] 형법 제37조, 제39조 제1항, 제347조 제1항, 형사소송법 제361조의3 제1항, 제361조의4 제1항, 제364조 제2항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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