beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal did not cause injury to the victim C as stated in the facts charged, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion
2. Determination
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, if the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be conducted. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Special Rule on Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not constitute death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years in the trial of the court of first instance, if the location of the defendant is not verified within six months from the date of receipt of the report on impossibility of service by public notice, even though the report on impossibility of service by public notice was made in order to identify the whereabouts of the defendant, the service by public notice shall be made by public notice. If the defendant's house number or cell phone number appears in the record, the service by public notice shall be made immediately after contact the above phone number, and the service by public notice shall not be permitted as it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Special Rule on Promotion, etc.
(2) The Defendant’s telephone number (D) is indicated in the instant application for formal trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094, May 13, 201). However, the lower court concluded that the Defendant’s whereabouts cannot be known without taking such measures, even though the Defendant’s telephone number should have been stated in the instant application for formal trial, prior to making a decision by public notice, even if the Defendant’s telephone number should have been heard to contact with the above telephone number.