교통사고처리특례법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of service of public disclosure if the whereabouts of the accused is not confirmed even though the accused took necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused, and Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the accused may be made only when the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the accused is unknown.
Therefore, if other contact numbers of the defendant appear on the record, it should be viewed that the attempt is made to confirm the place where the defendant will contact and receive the service by contact with the contact address, and it is not allowed to promptly serve the service by the method of public disclosure and make 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 of this case, since the bill of this case can be recognized that the facts in this case contain this entry in the cell phone number of the defendant, the court below attempted to contact with the above cell phone number prior to making a decision of public disclosure in light of the aforementioned legal principles, and therefore, the court below attempted to contact with the above cell phone number.
Although the defendant did not take such measures, the documents related to the lawsuit, such as a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons, etc., are served by means of public notice, by concluding that the defendant's whereabouts cannot be confirmed immediately without taking such measures, and thus, the documents were served by public notice, which were necessary
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in violation of the law and affected the conclusion of the judgment.