전자금융거래법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In accordance with the direction of the BY Branch Director known in the Internet B, the Defendant printed out the loan documents, sent them to the loan examiner, received the bags from him, and sent them to the designated place through the house, and was unaware of the fact that the above envelope contains a physical card.
Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts that the court below found guilty of each of the facts charged in this case.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the records of ex officio determination, ① the court below served a copy of indictment and a writ of summons by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits (hereinafter “the Act”), and tried on April 9, 2020 when the defendant was absent, and sentenced to one year imprisonment with prison labor on April 9, 2020; ② the defendant requested the recovery of right of appeal on June 2, 2020 when the defendant was arrested by the execution of punishment in accordance with the decision of the court below became formally final and conclusive; ③ The court rendered the decision of recovery of right of appeal on June 23, 2020; ③ The court considered the defendant was not appealed within the period of appeal due to reasons not attributable to the defendant on June
According to the above facts of recognition, there is no reason attributable to the defendant's failure to attend the trial of the court below and there is a reason for request for retrial under the Civil Procedure Promotion Act. Thus, this court shall proceed with a new litigation procedure against the defendant and render a new decision according to a new trial result, so the court below's judgment cannot be maintained
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252 Decided June 25, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243 Decided November 26, 2015, etc.). However, despite the aforementioned reasons for ex officio destruction, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
(b).