절도등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. On September 11, 2015, the Defendant, who was dissatisfied with the lower judgment, filed an appeal and filed a request for recovery of his/her right of appeal, and received the decision of recovery of his/her right of appeal on February 17, 2016, but failed to submit a statement of reasons for appeal within 20 days from the receipt of a notice of receipt of court records by serving public notice or service.
However, the defendant, at the same time as the petition of appeal, will make a request for retrial.
U.S.ENENE
As stated “,” it appears to be the ground for appeal as follows.
A. The Defendant was unable to attend the trial of the lower court due to a cause not attributable to him. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of a request for retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits ex officio determination, and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that where the whereabouts of the defendant cannot be confirmed until six months have passed since a report on the failure to serve on the defendant was received at the trial of the court of first instance at the trial, and where the whereabouts of the defendant was not confirmed even though he/she took necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant, service to the defendant shall be served by public notice after the receipt of the report.
However, according to the records of this case, on October 27, 2014, the court below decided that the service of the defendant on March 6, 2015, which was not yet more than six months since the receipt of a copy of the indictment against the defendant and a report stating that the defendant's writ of summons was not served due to the director's uncertainty, shall be made by the method of public notification and notification. Such decision of the court below is governed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.