beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, 80 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, 3 years of employment restriction order) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. According to the relevant legal principles under Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the trial of the first instance, if it is impossible to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant even though the request for investigation of location, issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures were taken in order to identify the whereabouts of the defendant, service by public notice for the
In this context, the six-month period is the minimum period established for the protection of the defendant's right to trial and the right to attack and defense. As such, it is not allowed for the first instance court to render a judgment without the defendant's statement by serving public notice even after six months have not passed since the receipt of the report on the failure to serve on the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4983, Nov. 14, 2003; 2016Do3467, Jul. 14, 2016). Meanwhile, the report on detection of location that the chief of a police station having jurisdiction over the defendant's domicile, etc. pursuant to the court's request for the detection of location by the court confirms the police officer's location by means of visiting the defendant's address directly and searching for residents or neighboring residents, so it can be seen that the same function as the report on failure to serve can be seen as more accurately than the report.
Therefore, the acceptance of the report on detection of location is about the promotion of litigation.