상해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though he/she took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service of the defendant shall be made by means of public notice after six months from the date on which the report on the impossibility of service was received, and Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, service of public notice shall be made only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown.
As such, in a case where the actual residence, place of work, house phone number, mobile phone number, etc. of a defendant appears on the record, an attempt shall be made to deliver them to such actual residence, etc., or to identify the place to be served by contact with telephone number, etc., and to serve them by means of public notice and to make a judgment without a statement of the defendant is not allowed without taking such measures (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do662, Jul. 28, 201, etc.). According to the record, the court of original judgment attempted to contact with the defendant's cell phone (I), etc. recorded in the evidence record prior to making a decision to serve public notice on Oct. 2, 2014.
In light of the above legal principles, the decision of the court below on delivery of public notice and its service based on it are unlawful, and the decision of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as it affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning litigation procedures.
3. Conclusion.