교통사고처리특례법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the court below’s sentence (in 10 months of imprisonment without prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too untile and unfair.
2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings; Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits (hereinafter “Special Rules”) provide that when the location of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service to the defendant by public notice shall be served after the service to the defendant, and when the defendant fails to appear even after being summoned by means of service by public notice as above on more than two occasions, a trial may be conducted without the defendant’s statement.
According to the records, the court below took measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant several times, such as delivery by mail, request of investigation into the location of the defendant, issuance of detention warrant, and provision of summons to cellular phone, etc., but the location of the defendant is not confirmed. Thus, after making the public notice service decision on May 15, 2015, the court below sent the writ of summons to the defendant by the method of public notice service, and completed the examination of evidence by immediately amending it on June 4, 2015, when the defendant was absent once at the trial date, and completed the examination of evidence without the attendance of the defendant, and such measures of the court below can be tried without the statement of the defendant when the defendant fails to appear at the trial date two times or more.
Article 19(2) of the Rules of Special Cases (the decision of the court below on February 13, 2015, which was made by the court below on February 13, 2015, is unlawful, and serve a writ of summons according to the decision of service by the court below on February 13, 2015, and the defendant's absence on that date is not included when the defendant was summoned for the trial date under Article 19(2) of the Rules of Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). Further, the court below issued a summons to the defendant on May 15, 2015.