사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. 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 ex officio before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, where the location of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, the service on the defendant shall be made by serving public notice. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by serving public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the defendant is unknown.
Therefore, in cases where 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 such address or to confirm the place where the defendant is to be served by contact with his/her contact address, and it is not allowed to promptly serve a summons by means of public notice delivery and to render a judgment without the defendant's statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). According to the records, the defendant stated his/her cell phone number (N) in the investigation process (78 pages of evidence record), and the court below attempted to confirm the place where the defendant is served by contact with the above cell phone number of the defendant in the decision to serve public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul.
The court below's decision that the defendant's location is not confirmed without such measures is not immediately served by the method of public disclosure and decided without the defendant's statement is in violation of the special rules on the promotion, etc. of litigation and the promotion of litigation, etc., and the litigation procedure is unlawful. Thus, the court below's decision cannot be maintained further in this regard.
3. Conclusion.