폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 9,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. As to the judgment of the first instance court rendered guilty without a defendant's statement pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Judgment (hereinafter "the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc.") where the defendant filed a petition for recovery of right to appeal for the reason that the defendant or his/her representative could not file an appeal within the period for filing an appeal for reasons not attributable to him/her, if such grounds include circumstances in which the defendant could not be present at the trial due to reasons not attributable to him/her, it is reasonable to deem that the grounds for appeal corresponding to "when grounds for filing an appeal exist" under Article 361-5 (1) 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act are asserted.
Therefore, in this case, the appellate court should examine whether there are grounds for the request for a retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Litigation Promotion Act, and there are such grounds.
If recognition is made, the judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed, and the new trial shall be rendered once again in accordance with the result of the new trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015). Pursuant to Article 23 of the Litigation Promotion Act, the lower court decided to serve the Defendant on July 3, 2017, served the Defendant with a public notice notice, served with a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons, etc. by means of serving the public notice, and tried on September 7, 2017 while the Defendant was absent, and sentenced the Defendant to ten months imprisonment on September 7, 2017. The Defendant filed a request for recovery of his/her right of appeal against the final and conclusive judgment of the lower court which became formally final and conclusive, and the District Court stated that the Defendant was unable to receive a normal trial due to lack of contact, and on November 14, 2017.