상해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unfilled and unreasonable.
2. 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 ex officio prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor of the ex officio judgment provides that service on the defendant shall be made by serving public notice if the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed even though the defendant was taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by serving public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the defendant is unknown.
Therefore, in the event that other dwelling places, contact numbers, etc. of the defendant appear on the record, an attempt should be made to send a writ of summons to such address or to confirm the place where service is to be made by contact with contact points, 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 without taking such measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). According to the records, the defendant stated his mobile phone number (J) in the investigation process (2017Dadan12017, Jul. 24, 201), and the court below attempted to confirm the place where the defendant is to contact with the above mobile phone number of the defendant in the decision to serve public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da120124, Jul. 28,
The court below's decision that the defendant's location is not confirmed without such measures is not immediately served by the method of public disclosure and decided without the defendant's statement is in violation of the special rules on the promotion, etc. of litigation and the promotion of litigation, etc., and the litigation procedure is unlawful. Thus, the court below's decision cannot be maintained further in this regard.
3...