logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.04.04 2018노501
도로교통법위반(무면허운전)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the existence of grounds for review and the sentencing unfair) and the trial was conducted without the attendance of the defendant for reasons for which the defendant cannot be held responsible, and the sentence (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2), 18(3), and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that when the location of the defendant is not verified even though he/she took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service to the defendant shall be made by means of serving public notice six months after the receipt of the report on the impossibility of service, and Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service may be made only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown.

According to the record, in cases where the actual dwelling place, work place, house phone number, mobile phone number, etc. of the defendant appeared, the defendant shall be served with such actual dwelling place, etc., or the place to be served with telephone numbers shall be checked, and the service of public notice shall not be permitted without taking such measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 201). According to the records, the court of original judgment shall terminate the pleadings after the defendant was present at the trial on the second trial date, and designated the trial date on March 10, 2017 and notified the defendant on the trial date on March 23, 201; ② The defendant’s national defense counsel has been absent on the trial date on March 21, 2017; ③ the fact that the defendant was absent on the trial date, and ③ the court of original judgment on his domicile at the trial date on which the defendant had been pronounced, etc.

arrow