logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.29 2016노654
부정수표단속법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) on the Defendant is excessively unreasonable, due to the summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though he/she took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service of the defendant shall be made by means of public notice after six months from the date on which the report on the impossibility of service was received, and Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, service of public notice shall be made only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown.

As such, in a case where the actual dwelling place, work place, house phone number, mobile phone number, etc. of the accused appears on the record, an attempt shall be made to deliver them to such actual dwelling place, etc., or to identify the place to be served by contact with telephone numbers, etc., and to serve them by means of public notice without taking such measures and to make a judgment without the statement of the accused is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do672, Jul. 28, 201, etc.). According to the record, the court of original judgment, prior to making a decision to serve public notice on June 3, 2015, sent them to the address of the accused (Yyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, and workplace telephone (K) or attempted to contact with him/her, etc. on the evidence record.

In light of the above legal principles, the decision of the court below on the service of public notice and its service are unlawful, and the decision of the court below is unlawful. Thus, the court below's decision on the service of public notice and its service are related to the legal procedures.

arrow