beta
Text
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defendant 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and imprisonment for 10 months for 2 months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, this paper examines ex officio the Defendant’s argument.
A. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant were separately sentenced, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings. Since each of the crimes of the judgment of the court of first instance is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single punishment in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment
B. According to the records of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant, ① the court of first instance sent a copy of indictment and a writ of summons, etc. through service by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion Act”) and sentenced the defendant to six months of imprisonment on December 5, 2019 after the defendant was absent. ② When the defendant was arrested by the execution of punishment in accordance with the judgment of the court of first instance which became final and conclusive, the court of first instance requested the recovery of the right to appeal on December 26, 2019; ③ The court of appeal on January 2, 2020 recognized the fact that the defendant was unable to appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.
According to the above facts of recognition, there is no reason attributable to the defendant in the first instance court's failure to attend the trial, and there is a reason for request for retrial under the Civil Procedure Promotion Act. Thus, this court shall proceed with a new litigation procedure against the defendant and render a new judgment according to a new trial result, so the first instance judgment cannot be maintained as it is.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal is unreasonable.