① Article 8(1) of the former Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11401, Mar. 21, 2012; hereinafter “Punishment Act”) provides that a penalty unpaid shall file a request for a summary judgment without delay for a specific period of time. The Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that, in the event a penalty unpaid fails to appear on the date of the summary judgment, the demand for attendance at the summary judgment must be made without delay by a notice informing the payment of penalty, etc. and the date, time, place, etc. for the summary judgment, and so, the demand for demand for the summary judgment should be made. As such, the above provision does not limit the demand for the summary judgment. ② In the event of interpreting the Act and subordinate statutes as stated in the lower court, a prosecution should be instituted if it is impossible to file a request for a summary judgment. This is more unfavorable to the Defendant. ③ Our criminal law system does not regulate the limitation period of prosecution, and it does not have the same system as the exclusion period of civil procedure. Thus, interpreting the same as the lower court’s judgment, without delay.

2. Determination

(a) recognised facts;

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized.

1) The Defendant: (a) received a penalty payment notice on December 23, 2008, which was issued on December 23, 2008, on the following grounds: (b) on December 16, 2008, that “the Defendant caused a disturbance, etc. to drinking in the ○○ District located ( Address omitted)” (hereinafter “instant violation”), and did not pay the penalty in accordance with the notice.

2) Pursuant to Article 8(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the chief of the Daejeon Police Station assigned the said notification disposition to the Defendant seven times from February 3, 2009 to June 28, 2013, sent the notification of the payment of penalty and the date, time, place, etc. of attendance for summary trial, namely, the payment of penalty for the said notification disposition and the notification of the payment of penalty, namely, the time, place, etc. of attendance for the summary trial. On November 26, 2009, the chief of the competent Police Station instructed the Defendant to investigate the Defendant’s whereabouts at the police box around 19:36 and July 26, 2013. However, the Defendant did not comply with the notification of penalty without paying the penalty pursuant to the said notification.

3) On August 29, 2013, the chief of the Daejeon District Court requested the Daejeon District Court to render a summary judgment on the Defendant’s violation of the instant provision (Article 2013 subparag. 1094 of the Daejeon District Court). Accordingly, on August 29, 2013, the said court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 60,00,000. The Defendant claimed for the recovery of the right to request formal trial on May 14, 2014 and accepted the claim on May 21, 2014.

B. The judgment of the court below

The lower court: (a) notified the Defendant of the violation of Article 1 subparag. 25 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act on the ground that the head of Daejeon District Police Station violated the notification of the Defendant on the ground that he/she violated the notification of the violation (the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment at the original trial on December 23, 2008, and permitted it) of the violation of Article 1 subparag. 25 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; and (b) again, on the ground that the Defendant did not appear on the date of the summary trial and the summary trial did not proceed due to his/her failure to appear on the date of the summary trial, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant did not appear on the grounds that the summary trial did not appear on the date of the summary trial; (c) on the ground that the Defendant did not appear on the date of the summary trial; (d) March 10, 2009; (e) May 20, 209; and (e) August 6, 2009; and (e) notified the Defendant of the summary judgment on June 28, 28, 201.

C. Judgment of the court below

According to Article 8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Procedure Act, the chief of a police station shall request a summary judgment without delay with respect to those who have failed to pay the penalty within the period for payment of such penalty. However, according to Article 8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2348, Jan. 6, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply), the chief of a police station shall give notice of the penalty to those who have failed to pay the penalty within 30 days from the expiration date of the period for payment of the penalty, including the payment of the penalty added by 50/100 to the penalty under the proviso of Article 8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, according to Article 8(2) of the same Act, the chief of a police station may request the head of a police station to serve a summary judgment for the payment of the penalty without delay if the person who has failed to attend the summary judgment fails to pay the penalty within 40 days from the expiration date of the period for payment of the summary judgment.

Therefore, as seen earlier, inasmuch as the chief of the Daejeon District Police Station sent the above notice to the defendant who did not pay the penalty even after receiving the notice, and did not respond to the attendance for the summary judgment on several occasions, and sent the defendant a notice of payment, such as a trial and a penalty, to the defendant on June 28, 2013 and sent the defendant a notice of payment, namely, a notice of payment on August 29, 2013, and the defendant did not respond to the request for the summary judgment against the defendant on August 29, 2013, the indictment procedure cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that the request for the summary judgment was made after

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution of this case on the ground that the request for summary judgment against the defendant by the chief of the Daejeon District Police Station violated Article 8 (1) 2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, and the prosecutor's assertion pointing

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is with merit, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the court below's dismissal judgment is reversed on the ground that it is in violation of the law, it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judges Lee Tae-young (Presiding Judge)