도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The lower court’s sentence (5,000,000 won) against the Defendant on the gist of the prosecutor’s appeal is unreasonable because it is too unfasible.
2. Ex officio determination
A. 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 provide that service to the accused shall be made by means of public notice when the location of the accused is not confirmed even though the accused was taken necessary measures to identify the whereabouts of the accused. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service to the accused may be made by public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the accused is unknown.
Therefore, in the event that other dwelling places, contact numbers, etc. of the defendant appear in the records, 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 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). (b) According to the records of this case, the defendant's address is written as "Seoul Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul (Evidence No. 4 page of evidence record). Thus, the court below attempted to send a writ to the above address of the defendant in making a decision to serve public notice.
Although the court below did not take such measures and rendered a judgment without the defendant's statement because it concluded that the whereabouts of the defendant are not confirmed, the service by the method of public disclosure was made immediately without the defendant's statement. Such decision of the court below is in violation of the special rules on special cases concerning the promotion, etc. of litigation and the promotion of litigation, etc., and its litigation procedure is unlawful. Thus, the court below
3. Conclusion.