사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the record, the defendant is unable to attend the trial of the court of original instance due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, he may request a retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit
Therefore, this court shall reverse the judgment of the court below and render a new judgment in accordance with the result of the trial in this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015). Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
(1) The original court served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of the defendant by means of public notification pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and sentenced the defendant to six months after he/she has been absent.
(2) The Defendant was unable to receive a service of a copy, etc. of indictment after he/she was arrested in the form of a formal judgment of the lower court, and was unaware of the fact that judgment was pronounced
The claim for recovery of the right of appeal was filed.
(3) The original court recognized that the defendant was unable to appeal within the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to him/her and decided to recover his/her right to appeal.
3. When the defendant filed an appeal against the instant case, the case of applying for a compensation order pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall also be transferred to the appellate court.
However, the court below issued a compensation order with the content that the defendant would pay 26,153,650 won by defraudation to the applicant, and since the defendant was in the first instance, the scope of the defendant's compensation liability is not clear by mutual consent with the victim.