Whether the reason for the failure to identify the residence, which caused service by public notice, can be seen as the reason for the failure to identify the residence, due to the absence of the recipient at each time, even though the house leader went to his domicile two times (negative)

In the criminal proceedings, service by public notice to the defendant can only be made when the dwelling, office, or present residence of the defendant is unknown, and the office and present address of the defendant can not be made in cases where the office and present address of the defendant are evident. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the reason that the mailman went to the domicile of the re-appellant two times but the addressee was absent at that time constitutes a case where the dwelling cannot be known.

Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] 4294 M&D 24 decided June 23, 1961

Re-appellant

Chuncheon District Court Order 84Ro1 dated April 11, 1984

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, while maintaining the first instance court's decision dismissing the request for formal trial, the court below held that, as a reason, the copy of the summary order against the re-appellant was sent to the address of the re-appellant and sent to that address two times by mail, and the mailman did not deliver it at that time, but the copy was returned to the court in the summary order. Thus, service by public notice was sent to the court in the court of summary order. Under the above circumstances, service by public notice was lawful and no other evidence exists to deem that the request for formal trial could not be made due to reasons for which the re-appellant or his representative could not be responsible.

However, in the criminal procedure, service by public notice to the defendant can only be made when the dwelling, office or present address of the defendant is unknown (Article 63 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act) and it cannot be made if the office or present address of the defendant is obvious in the records. In this case, it is difficult to conclude that the reason that the mailman went to the domicile of the re-appellant two times but the addressee was absent at that time is not known. In addition, according to the records, the address of the owner of the vehicle driving by the re-appellant is clearly indicated (Article 19, No. 34). Since the location of the owner of the vehicle driving by the re-appellant is not likely to be the location of the re-appellant's workplace, the above telephone number is stated as the seat number of the re-appellant (Article 63 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, the above order court's request for a formal trial cannot be viewed as being served again as the domicile of the re-appellant, or it cannot be viewed as an order for a new trial without being returned to the court's.

Therefore, the reappeal of this case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Gangseo-young (Presiding Justice)