사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.
1. The sentencing of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment, and ten months of imprisonment) is too large and unreasonable in the summary of the grounds for appeal.
2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made. According to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, if the defendant's location is not a case falling under capital punishment, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial, a request for investigation of location, issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures was taken to confirm the location of the defendant, and if the defendant's location is not confirmed within six months after the receipt of the report on impossibility of service by public notice, service by public notice
On the other hand, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it should be viewed as an attempt to confirm the place where service is made by contact with the above telephone number, and it is not permitted to serve service by public notice immediately without taking such measures because it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 201). However, according to the records, even if the Defendant appeared at the first to fourth trial date of the lower court and was lawfully notified of the fifth trial date (date of adjudication), the Defendant did not appear from the fifth trial date (date of December 13, 2012) but was later notified of the summons, and the Defendant was dispatched three times from the Defendant’s domicile as stated in the written indictment to January 17, 2013.