사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
ex officio determination fin, the Defendant did not submit a written reason for appeal within the period for filing an appeal (the Defendant did not submit a written reason for appeal). According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service on public notice to the Defendant can be conducted only when the dwelling, office, or current address of the Defendant is unknown. Thus, in the records, if the Defendant’s home number or mobile phone number, etc. is disclosed, an attempt should be made to identify the place where service is to be made by contact with the above telephone number and to regard it as the place where service is to be made, and immediately service by public notice without taking such measures and make a decision without the Defendant’s statement is not permitted as it violates Articles 63(1) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12430, Jan. 28, 2010). According to the records, the lower court’s judgment on June 28, 2017 that the Defendant’s address was “AE.”
In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court, prior to issuing an order to serve a public notice, sent an attempt to deem the service to the above address submitted by the Defendant.
Despite the fact that the defendant's residence, office, and present position are not known without taking such measures, and the service by the method of public notice is promptly made by the defendant and without making a statement is in violation of Articles 63 (1) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and this constitutes a case where litigation procedures violate the law and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12430 Decided January 28, 201).