logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.06.28 2018노22
전자금융거래법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant (three million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court ex officio determined that the Defendant’s whereabouts cannot be confirmed even after taking measures to confirm the whereabouts of the Defendant, such as requesting the detection of location, requesting the correction of address, issuing detention warrants, etc., and served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of the Defendant on the means of public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and declared the Defendant guilty by conducting a trial without the Defendant’s statement while the Defendant

After that, the defendant filed a request for recovery of the right of appeal on the ground that he was unable to receive the notice of a copy of indictment, etc., and the court of original instance decided to recover the right of appeal on the ground that the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the period of appeal due to the reason that

As can be seen, there is a ground for review that the lower court’s judgment is stipulated in Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and that “where a defendant who was convicted of a conviction was unable to attend the trial due to the cause for which

In a case where the defendant claimed and cited the right to appeal for the reason that he could not file an appeal within the period for filing an appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant or his agent for this reason, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant alleged that there was a cause for the request for retrial, and that he asserted the reason for appeal corresponding to the “when a cause for the request for retrial exists” as prescribed in Article 361-5 subparag. 13 of

Therefore, the defendant's request for retrial under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings has no reason to return to the court below's failure to attend the trial.

arrow