전자금융거래법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment of unfair argument of sentencing.
A. According to the provisions of Article 19(2) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, even in cases where summons of the defendant is to be served by public notice in the trial proceedings of the first instance, it is required that the defendant summoned by public notice for a trial without the defendant's statement should be absent at least twice.
Therefore, where a defendant who was summoned by means of public notice is absent, he/she may proceed with the trial proceedings under the absence of the defendant even after the defendant was absent, by means of re-designated the date of public trial and serving public notice (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094, May 13, 201). According to the records, the court below ordered the defendant to be present at the public trial on 10th day after serving a writ of summons on the date of public trial on 10th day, which is the dwelling place E, and 102, which is the dwelling place submitted by the defendant, but it was impossible to serve on 16th day after requesting the head of the original police station having jurisdiction over the dwelling place of the defendant, to detect the location of the defendant, and 2th day of public trial on 10th day after serving the first 7th day of public trial on 10th day after serving the public trial on 10th day after public trial, and (3) the court below ordered the defendant to be present at the public trial on 16th day after serving the public trial on 16th day.