변호사법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not intend to receive money and valuables in return for the solicitation of the horses with B and the instant case, and it was merely a delivery to B upon receipt of the consideration from C, etc. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is unreasonable.
B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. On April 6, 2017, the lower court served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons on the part of the Defendant by serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion”), and tried in a state where the Defendant was absent, and sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment.
On May 2, 2017, after the Defendant became aware of the pronouncement of the lower judgment, the Defendant asserted to the Incheon District Court that he was unaware of the fact that he was unable to receive a delivery of a copy of the indictment, etc., and submitted a written application for recovery of his right to appeal along with the petition of appeal.
On May 19, 2017, the Incheon District Court decided to recover the right of appeal on the ground that the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant alleged that there is a ground for a request for a retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Litigation Promotion Act, and it is a ground for appeal corresponding to "when there is a ground for a request for a retrial" under Article 361-5 (1) 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In accordance with the record, there is a ground for
Recognized.
Accordingly, the court below's decision cannot be maintained as it is, since it newly deliberated on the procedure of trial by delivering a duplicate of indictment to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). 3. As such, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio as stated above, and the judgment of the court below is without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.