beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that did not recognize the fact of the victim's participation even though the defendant stolen the victim's wallet in collaboration with E, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made. If the defendant's residence, office, or present address is not a case corresponding to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years in the trial of the first instance, Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service by public notice shall be made in cases where the defendant's whereabouts cannot be confirmed even after six months have passed since his/her request for investigation, issuance of arrest warrant, or other necessary measures was received in order to verify the defendant's whereabouts, even though the court of first instance requested the investigation of location, issuance of arrest warrant, or other necessary measures was taken, even if six months have passed since the defendant's report was received (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do3467, Jul. 14, 2016).
(1) The lower court, while the Defendant was present, completed the first to fifth trial date and completed the examination of evidence, and concluded the pleadings.
② As the Defendant was absent on May 31, 2018, the sixth trial day, which is the sentencing date, the lower court delayed the pronouncement of the Defendant, and the address of the Defendant as stated in the indictment.