폭행
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. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service of public notice may be conducted when the dwelling, office, or domicile of the defendant is unknown. Thus, if the telephone number or domicile of the defendant and his family's domicile appear on the record, the attempt to contact the above telephone number or domicile shall be made, and service by means of public notice immediately without taking such measures is not permitted as it violates Article 63(1) and Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 2009Do12430, Jan. 28, 2010). According to the records of this case, the court below's determination that service of the defendant's cell phone number and the defendant's cell phone number by means of contact with the defendant is not possible before service of public trial record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do175).
Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3037 Decided May 16, 2014 ruled that the decision of public disclosure service is illegal unless the defendant confirmed the husband's mobile phone number, although the defendant stated the husband's mobile phone number in the police.