logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.02.05 2014노3544
무고
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was raped by D, and the Defendant was assaulted by D.

The court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the basis of the contents of statements made by D, E, etc. without credibility despite the fact that the defendant filed a complaint by rape and assault. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that service by public notice shall be made only when the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice may be made only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown.

Therefore, in a case where other contact details of the defendant appear in the record, the attempt to contact the contact details with the defendant and to regard the place of service shall be made, and it is not allowed to promptly serve the documents by public notice and make a judgment without the defendant's statement without taking such measures.

(2) According to the records of this case, the Defendant sent a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons to the Defendant’s domicile as stated in the indictment on August 29, 2013, but it was impossible to serve the Defendant due to the absence of closure on September 4, 2013. The lower court issued a writ of arrest to the Defendant on November 12, 2013, and requested the prosecutor to correct the Defendant’s address on December 12, 2013, but requested the Defendant to find the location of the Defendant at his/her domicile consistent with the Defendant’s domicile as stated in the indictment.

arrow