logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.09.19 2014노695
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치사상)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 reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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, if the whereabouts of the accused are not verified even though the accused took necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused, service by public notice shall be made by means of subsequent service. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice may be made only when the whereabouts of the accused are unknown. Thus, if other contact numbers, etc. of the accused appear in the record, service by public notice shall be conducted by visiting the contact address and checking the place where service by public notice is to be made, and without taking such measures, service by public notice shall not be permitted.

(2) According to the records, the court below entrusted the detection of the location of the Defendant on June 17, 2013 to the Seongbuk-gunJ, which was written in the indictment, to the Defendant’s residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6762, Jul. 28, 201). The court below held that the Defendant was unable to serve the Defendant’s writ of summons on two occasions due to unknown directors’ unknownness, etc. on March 15, 2013. The court below did not call due to the Defendant’s cell phone number (K) as stated in the indictment but did not receive a telephone, and the Defendant was not present on the date of trial. The court below issued the Defendant’s detention warrant to the Defendant on March 29, 2013 and April 19, 2013, and the Defendant was not entirely executed due to the Defendant’s unknown whereabouts. However, the court below entrusted the detection of the location of the Defendant’s residence as stated in the indictment to the Defendant, etc.

arrow