전자금융거래법위반
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.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Although the Defendant did not commit the instant crime, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.
The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) against the Defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
Judgment
According to Articles 458(2) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, where a defendant who requested a formal trial on the date of trial does not appear in court on the date of trial, a new date is set, and where a defendant fails to appear in court on the new date without justifiable grounds, a judgment may be rendered without a statement of the defendant.
In order for the defendant to be judged without a statement in his/her absence, the case must be applicable in cases where the defendant was notified of a legitimate trial date and did not appear in the court without justifiable reasons two consecutive times (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1616, Jun. 28, 2012). In cases of service by public notice, it is required that the defendant was summoned lawfully in the court date by service by public notice at least two times.
According to the records, the court below ordered, except for the first writ of summons, that the defendant was absent on the date of trial because the summons was not served, that the defendant received a reply that all of the defendant does not reside by entrusting the detection of location twice on December 20, 2012, and that service on the defendant was made by public notice on December 31, 2010. The court below served a writ of summons on the defendant on December 31, 201 by public notice; however, the service by public notice of the above writ of summons became effective on January 4, 201; however, on the premise that the service by public notice of the above defendant was duly summoned by public notice on December 31, 2010, the court below postponed the pleadings on the premise that the defendant was summoned by public notice on December 31, 2010, and summon the defendant again by public notice by public notice on January 14, 2011.