사기
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 fact-finding, the Defendant did not talk about the relationship with the former Prime Minister, etc. to the victim E, but did not register as a number of problems that occurred after the establishment of a civil organization, and the amount transferred under H’s name was explained to the victim in advance due to the problem of cost settlement. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was deception or intentional deception.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, where the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to capital punishment or imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years for life, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed within six months from the date of receipt of the report on impossibility of service by public notice, the service on the defendant shall be made by public notice
Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it is necessary to have an attempt to contact the above telephone number with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094, May 13, 2011). According to the record, the lower court stated the Defendant’s phone number (L) in the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant.