사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the penalty (one million won of a fine) imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, where the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice shall be allowed. Thus, in a case where the defendant's home number, cell phone number, etc. is revealed in the record, an attempt should be made to identify the place where service is to be made by public notice, and immediately service by public notice without taking such measures is not permitted as it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
According to the records, the court below sent a copy of the indictment, a notice of appointment of state appointed defense counsel, and a written opinion to the defendant, but when the report of impossibility of service (the identity of the recipient) was received on October 17, 2012, ordered the correction of the address, and sent a writ of summons to the corrected address (U.S., Nowon-gu E) on November 8, 2012, and served the above writ of summons on November 8, 2012. Since the defendant did not appear, the defendant was not present, and the writ of summons was not served on January 28, 2013, the court below entrusted the detection of the location, and attempted to refund the phone to the defendant's cell phone number stated in the request for formal trial on January 23, 2013, but did not summon the defendant, and on February 28, 2013 and February 28, 2013.
3. The fact that the report on the detection of location was received on April 29, 201, and the lower court ordered the service of the Defendant by public notice on April 5, 2013, and sentenced the judgment on May 9, 2013 after the Defendant’s progress of the trial date in the absence of his/her presence. However, although the instant indictment contains another mobile phone number (G), the lower court may recognize the fact that the Defendant did not attempt to return the phone number.
The above facts of recognition.