업무상횡령
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by eight months of imprisonment.
1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the dwelling, office, and present whereabouts of the defendant are unknown, public notice may be given. Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the trial proceedings of the first instance, if the location of the defendant is not verified within six months from the date of receipt of the report on the impossibility of service to the defendant, even though he/she commissioned the investigation to identify his/her whereabouts, issued a arrest warrant, or took other necessary measures, the service to the defendant is to be made by public notice.
Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, the attempt should be made to confirm and regard the place to be served with the above telephone number, and the delivery by the method of public disclosure immediately without taking such measures is not permitted as it violates Article 63 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 201). (b) According to the records, the court below decided to publicly announce the documents of the case against the defendant and ordered the defendant to be served with the notice of the case at the 7 and 8th public trial without the defendant's statement and the defendant was not present on the 9th public trial date without the defendant's statement, while on the other hand, the fact that the defendant's phone number in the police investigation record on the defendant submitted on the date of the 8th public trial of the court below stated "K" in the above evidence record (Evidence record).