beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred in the misapprehension of Acts and subordinate statutes in proceeding with a trial by public notice without attempting to serve the service of the documents on G apartment Nos. 905 and 1701 in the Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service by public notice to the accused in the criminal proceedings can be made only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the accused is unknown. In a case where the actual dwelling, place of service, telephone number, mobile phone number, etc. of the accused appears in the record, service by public notice shall be deemed to have been made through such actual dwelling, etc. or the location of service by public notice after contact with the telephone number shall be deemed to have been confirmed, and it is unlawful to serve the accused
(2) According to the records of this case, the court below determined that the service of documents against the defendant on June 3, 2013 should be made by means of service by public notice, and that the defendant did not appear in the court on September 6, 2012 after the trial procedure of the court below was present and the trial was closed on September 6, 2012. The court below determined that the defendant did not appear in the court on July 14, 2013 pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation, etc. at the trial date, and that the defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the same month on July 23, 2013, when the defendant did not attempt to serve the documents on the defendant under this case's judgment against the defendant on the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (the 113th page of the trial record) as stated in this case's judgment against the defendant.
Therefore, the court below should have attempted to serve the above address prior to the decision of service by public notice.