beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered against the defendant (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.
2. Articles 458(2) and 365(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the ex officio Judgment provides that if the defendant who has requested a formal trial fails to appear on the date of the public trial, the new date shall be fixed, and if the defendant fails to appear on the new date without justifiable grounds, the judgment may be rendered without the defendant's statement.
This is a kind of disciplinary provision that considers that the defendant has waived his right to pleading on the merits by neglect of his/her duty, so if he/she intends to revert his/her responsibility for absence on two occasions, the defendant does not appear in the court without justifiable grounds even though he/she has received a summons of legitimate trial date on two occasions.
According to the records, the defendant was notified of the date of trial 1 and 2 times en bloc designated by the court of the original trial on September 1, 2016, and the defendant was absent on the date of the first trial of the original trial on September 26, 2016, and on September 29, 2016, the defendant was absent on the date of the second trial of the original court on September 29, 2016, and the defendant was absent on the date of the second trial of the original court on September 29, 2016. As such, the court of the original court recognized the fact that the court sentenced the defendant to a judgment of conviction of KRW 1,00,000 by amending the Criminal Procedure Act without the attendance of the defendant pursuant to Articles 458(2) and 365(2) of the said Act.
Examining in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below's decision that rendered a judgment without serving a summons of the trial date twice separately on the defendant although it is difficult to deem that the failure of the defendant on the date of the first and second public trial notified in a lump sum, as in this case, constitutes a case where the defendant could revise without the attendance of the defendant as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act, was unlawful since it violates Articles 458 (2) and 365 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.
3. Conclusion.