beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the reasons for the Defendant’s appeal prior to the determination of ex officio.
Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2), 18(3), and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of serving public notice when the location of the accused is not verified even though the accused has taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused, and that service on the accused may be made by public notice only when the dwelling, office, and present whereabouts of the accused are unknown.
Therefore, if other contact numbers of the defendant appear on the record, it should be viewed that the attempt is made to identify the place where the defendant will receive the service by contact with the contact address and to identify the place where the defendant will receive the service by the public disclosure immediately without taking such measures (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 201). According to the records, the court of original judgment, prior to making a decision to serve the public notice on October 23, 2015, requested the detection of the defendant's workplace to F Co., Ltd. located in Seoyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, where the defendant's workplace is located, or attempted to contact with the above F Co., Ltd. to contact with the person in charge of the above F (L).
In light of the above legal principles, the decision of the court below on the service of public notice and its service are unlawful, and the decision of the court below is erroneous as it affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes on litigation procedures, since the decision of the court below on service of public notice and its service are unlawful.
3. Therefore, the court below's decision is erroneous.