공용물건손상등
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.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below's decision of service by public notice was made in a manner of service by public notice, but the defendant's domicile was erroneously stated in the investigation process as "J of Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-do" even though the defendant's domicile was "Y of Seocheon-gu, Gyeonggi-do," and the court below decided service by public notice on the ground that the defendant's residence cannot be known on the ground that the defendant's request for detection of erroneous address was made. This constitutes a case where service by public notice was made even
B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination as to whether service by public notice is illegal
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service by public notice to the defendant can be conducted only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown. Thus, in the event that the defendant's home number or mobile phone number, etc. is shown in the record, an attempt to contact the above telephone number and check the place where service is to be made, and it is not permitted to serve service by public notice immediately without taking such measures and make a judgment without the defendant's statement because it violates Articles 63(1) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12430 Decided January 28, 2010, etc.). B.
According to the records, prior to the decision of service by public notice, the lower court was merely to confirm the fact that the Defendant was unable to reside by detecting the location of the above address, which is the Defendant’s domicile, by called “K,” which is the mobile phone number of the Defendant as stated in the indictment, and did not take measures such as checking the actual dwelling or service place of the Defendant, and making a decision by public notice on April 1, 2014 and without the Defendant’s statement.