Supreme Court rules lower court must review sentencing even without appeal brief

The Supreme Court ruled that an appellate court cannot dismiss an appeal solely because the defendant failed to submit a statement of grounds within the statutory deadline if ex officio investigation reasons exist. Judges must instead examine the case on their own authority and overturn the original verdict if they find legal grounds to do so.

The decision came in a criminal case where a defendant convicted of fraud had appealed a first-instance fine but missed the deadline to file a formal statement of grounds. While that appeal was pending, a separate judgment imposing a prison term for another fraud charge became final, creating a situation where the crimes should have been treated as concurrent offenses under the Criminal Act.

The Daegu District Court had previously rejected the appeal on Jan. 5, 2026, ruling that the late submission barred further review and that no ex officio issues were present.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that the emergence of a concurrent offense relationship after the initial trial constitutes an ex officio investigation reason that the court must address regardless of procedural filings. The justices held that the appellate court should have applied the provisions for concurrent crimes to ensure fairness in sentencing.

The high court emphasized that failing to consider such factors violates the Criminal Procedure Act, which mandates judicial review of specific legal errors even when parties do not raise them.

Consequently, the Supreme Court broke the lower court's decision and remanded the case back to the Daegu District Court for a new trial to determine the appropriate penalty by considering both fraud convictions together.