게임산업진흥에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.
1. The lower court’s sentence (five months of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the gist of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal is too unfasible and unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service to the accused shall be made by means of public notice when the location of the accused is not confirmed even though the accused was taken necessary measures to identify the whereabouts of the accused. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service to the accused may be made by public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the accused is unknown.
Therefore, if other dwelling places, contact numbers, etc. of the defendant appear on the record, an attempt should be made to send a writ of summons to the address or to confirm the place where the defendant will be served by contact with the contact address, and it is not allowed to promptly serve a summons by means of public notice delivery and make a judgment without the defendant's statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). (b) According to the records of this case, the defendant's dwelling is written in Busan-Gu P, 5 Dong 101, and the defendant's dwelling is written in the indictment (which means 25 pages of the evidence record) and the indictment (which means the trial record) against the defendant's dwelling in Busan-Gu P, 5 Dong 101, and thus, the court below attempted to serve the defendant to the above address of the defendant in making a public notice.
Although the court below did not take such measures and rendered a judgment without the defendant's statement because it concluded that the whereabouts of the defendant are not confirmed, the service by the method of public disclosure was made immediately and without the defendant's statement. Such decision of the court below is in violation of the special rules on special cases concerning the promotion, etc. of litigation and the promotion of litigation, and its litigation procedure is unlawful. Thus, the court below'