마약류관리에관한법률위반(향정)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Duplicating with seized one-time injection.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of one year and six months, the additional collection of 1.450,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the whereabouts of the accused are unknown, public notice may be given when the whereabouts of the accused are unknown. Article 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, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for an indefinite term exceeding ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years at the trial of the first instance, if the whereabouts of the accused is not confirmed by the method of service of public notice, notwithstanding the commission of investigation, issuance of arrest heads, or other necessary measures to verify the whereabouts of the accused.
Therefore, in the event that the Defendant’s home number or mobile phone number appears on the record, an attempt should be made to confirm and regard the place to be served with the above phone 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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do1094, May 13, 2011). According to the records, the lower court stated in the Defendant’s written indictment in the Defendant’s residence as “F in the front city of U.S.” and stated the Defendant’s phone number as “the above phone number” prepared by the prosecutor as the Defendant’s phone number was not verified even after the discovery of the location of the prosecutor, the prosecutor’s address, and the head of the competent police station.