도로교통법위반(무면허운전)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. As the Defendant did not appear in the trial proceedings without any cause attributable to the lower court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court served a writ of summons, etc. by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) and served a six-month sentence by imprisonment with prison labor. After that, the Defendant filed a claim for recovery of the right of appeal against the judgment of the lower court which became formally final and conclusive, and the lower court rendered a decision to recover the right of appeal by deeming that the Defendant was unable to file an
If so, there is no reason attributable to the defendant who was unable to attend the court on the court date, and thus, there is a reason to request a retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Procedure for Review. In such cases, this court shall proceed with a new litigation procedure by delivering a copy of indictment to the defendant and render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015).
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is justified.
3. Thus, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is with merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is
【The reason for the judgment of the court below which has been written] The facts constituting the crime and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court, and the summary of the evidence, are different from the fact that "the police interrogation protocol against the defendant is changed to "1. The defendant's trial testimony" in the summary of evidence.