교통사고처리특례법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the trial of the first instance, if the location of the defendant was not verified by the request for investigation of location, issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures in order to confirm the location of the defendant, the service on the defendant shall be made by public notice if the location of
Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it is necessary to have an attempt to contact the above telephone number with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 2011). B.
According to the records, the court below did not make an attempt to contact the defendant with the telephone number (T) of the defendant stated in the protocol of suspect examination of the police as to the defendant and to confirm the place of service of the defendant, but did not make an attempt to confirm the location of the defendant. The court below's decision did not confirm the location of the defendant even after the request for detection of location to the chief of the competent police station, and issued the warrant for detention and returned it to the expiration of the period of validity.