사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the compensation order is revoked.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
except that this judgment.
1. The 8-month imprisonment sentenced by the original court on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.
According to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule thereof, only when the location of the defendant is not confirmed at the expiration of six months from the time of receipt of a report on the failure to serve on the defendant even though he/she has taken necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant.
According to the records, the court below held on October 16, 2015, without taking any measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant, such as requesting the detection of location, issuing a detention warrant, etc., without having received a report on the failure to serve on the defendant. On April 21, 2016, when six months have passed since the defendant issued a detention warrant to the defendant on October 16, 2015, and requested the designated number of times, service by public notice was decided on April 21, 2016. On July 1, 2016, when the defendant was absent from the defendant pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation, etc., the court below held that the trial was concluded after the date of the eight trial date of the nine trial date, which was the nine trial date,
In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the decision of the court below by public notice was made without taking necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant and at the time when six months have not passed since the receipt of the report on the failure to serve on the defendant. Thus, the decision of the court below was unlawful since it did not meet the requirements of Article 23(1) of the Act on Special Cases, and the proceeding and decision of the court date based thereon was also unlawful.
3. The judgment of the court below is correct.