beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is not the fact that the defendant, in collusion with B and A, has deceiving the victim T by fraud.
2. Ex officio determination
A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3), and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that service on the defendant shall be made by means of service, in cases where the location of the defendant is not verified despite taking necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by public notice only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. As such, in cases where other addresses, contact address, etc. of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice shall be made by detecting the location of the defendant at that address, and service by public notice shall not be permitted without taking such measures.
According to the records of this case, the court below sent a copy, etc. of indictment to Seoul building 302, which is the defendant's address as stated in the indictment, but it was impossible to send a copy, etc. of indictment due to the absence of a closed door, and it was found that there was no change in the defendant's address due to the prosecutor's correction of address, and the defendant's telephone (BF) did not communicate with the above address. The court below confirmed that the prosecutor was absent on the first day, and the defendant's address was changed to "Seoul Yangcheon-gu BGDB02" due to the prosecutor's correction of address, and that the defendant's address was changed to "Seoul MGDBB02," but the service was conducted at night due to the change of address, but the service was also impossible due to the absence of a closed door, and the court below discovered the location of the address changed to the defendant's address, and the defendant's response was made on February