logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.09.25 2014노1774
폭행
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the lower court (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable;

(2) The defendant and his defense counsel asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal on the second trial date of the trial at the trial of the trial court, and withdrawn his claim for mental and physical disability.

According to Articles 455(3) and 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an amendment is not made without the attendance of the defendant in the ordinary trial proceedings against a summary order. However, according to Articles 458(2) and 365 of the same Act, when the defendant does not appear in the court on the date of public trial proceedings, a new date is set and when the defendant does not appear in the court on the new date without justifiable grounds, a judgment may be rendered without the statement of the defendant. In order for the defendant to make a judgment without the defendant's statement, it is necessary that the defendant does not appear in the court without justifiable grounds even after receiving

In addition, according to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service by public notice to the defendant can be conducted only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown. Thus, in the event the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number is shown in the record, an attempt should be made to identify the place where service is to be made by contact with the above telephone number, and it is not permitted to serve service by public notice immediately without taking such measures and make a decision without the defendant's statement because it violates Articles 63(1), 458(2), and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In light of the records on this case, the Defendant claimed a summary order No. 201 High Court No. 2011 High Court No. 18032, and entered “L” and “M” into a telephone number capable of contact, and filed a formal trial against the above summary order.

arrow