특수상해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. According to the relevant legal principles under Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to capital punishment or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life exceeding ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial, if it is impossible to confirm the location of the defendant's whereabouts even though a report on impossibility of service against the defendant was received, service by public notice for the defendant may be made
In this context, the six-month period is the minimum period established for the protection of the defendant's right to trial and right to attack and defense. As such, it is not allowed for the first instance court to judge without the defendant's statement by serving public notice even after six months have not passed since the receipt of the report on the failure to serve on the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4983, Nov. 14, 2003; 2016Do3467, Jul. 14, 2016). On the other hand, the report on impossibility of detection that the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the defendant's domicile, etc. sent by the court's request for the detection of location by the court confirms the defendant's location by means of directly visiting the defendant's address and searching for residents or neighboring residents, so it is possible to confirm the defendant's whereabouts more accurately than the report on impossibility of serving.
Therefore, the receipt of a report on detection of location is "the receipt of a report on impossibility of delivery" under Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit.