beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. In a case where a defendant filed a claim for recovery of appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, which was affirmed without a defendant's statement pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the defendant filed a claim for recovery of appeal and cited it, if such grounds include circumstances in which the defendant could not be present in the trial due to a cause not attributable to him/her, it is reasonable to deem that there exist grounds for a request for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the grounds for appeal corresponding to "when a request for retrial has
Therefore, in the above case, the appellate court should examine whether there are grounds for the request for a retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and there are such grounds.
If recognized, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed, and a new judgment shall be rendered based on the result of the new trial, including serving a copy, etc. of the indictment again (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). (b) According to the records, the court of original judgment may recognize the fact that (i) the court has served a copy, summons, etc. of the indictment on the method of serving public notice to the defendant pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and (ii) the defendant made a judgment on February 3, 2016 after having been absent; (iii) the defendant claimed on March 15, 2016 as the Changwon District Court at the early 173 at the beginning of 2016, that he/she was unable to appear in the trial because he/she was unable to receive a writ of summons, and (iii) the court can recognize the fact that the above defendant was unable to appeal within the appeal period.
In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, such facts are examined.