도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
1. The sentence (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to determining ex officio.
According to Articles 370 and 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court may not open the court without the attendance of the defendant. However, according to Article 365 of the same Act, if the defendant does not appear in the court on the trial date of appellate trial, the court may render a judgment without the defendant's statement, if the defendant does not appear in the court on the new trial date without justifiable grounds, and if the defendant does not appear in the court on the new trial date without justifiable grounds, the defendant needs not appear in the court without justifiable grounds even after receiving a summons of due date of trial.
In addition, according to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, public disclosure service for the accused can be conducted only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the accused is unknown. Thus, in the event that the office or mobile phone number, etc. of the accused appears on the record, it should be viewed as an attempt to confirm the place to be served by contact with the above telephone number and to regard it as the place to be served, and immediately make a judgment without the accused’s statement without taking such measures, it is not permitted as it violates Articles 63(1) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
In addition, the above legal principle also applies to the case where the defendant knew that the lawsuit has been pending in the appellate court, and the defendant did not report his residence to the court, and thus the service by the court is not made by the method of public notice.
This is because the court did not change the place of residence of the defendant even though the procedure for serving public notice is clearly illegal, and the judgment based on the above illegal procedure for serving public notice is not legitimate.