beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. According to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., if the location of the defendant is not a case corresponding to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial, and if the location of the defendant has not been verified by the lapse of six months from the receipt of the report on impossibility of service, despite the fact that the report on impossibility of service to the defendant was received, the service on the defendant shall be made by public notice, and if the defendant fails to appear after being summoned by public notice not less than twice
However, according to the records, the court below's order the service of the defendant on January 6, 2014, in which six months have not passed since the report was received on July 29, 2013, to serve the defendant by public notice, and served the defendant with a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of the trial date, etc. by public notice. On March 6, 2014, the court below can find the fact that the defendant was not present at least twice in the court and the judgment was proceeded and sentenced by amendment without the attendance of the defendant. Thus, the court's decision of service by public notice by public notice by the court below is unlawful and the litigation procedure of the court below is also unlawful.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.
Criminal facts
this Court recognizes the substance of the evidence and the summary thereof.