logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.12.08 2020노591
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (in the original case, a fine of five million won);

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years in the first instance trial, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed after six months have passed since the receipt of the report on the impossibility of service by public notice, the service on the defendant shall be made by public notice.

B. In addition, as long as the first instance court served a copy of indictment and a writ of summons of trial date on the basis of the illegal decision of service by public notice and deemed that the defendant was not present two or more times without the attendance of the defendant, it is unlawful that the defendant was not given an opportunity to attend the court, and the proceedings of the court of appeals are unlawful. As regards the grounds affecting the judgment, the court of appeals may decide ex officio on the grounds that are not included in the grounds for appeal, and the court

In other words, in such a case, the appellate court should reverse the judgment of the first instance court which is illegal after newly conducting procedural acts through legitimate procedures, and make a new judgment based on the trial result such as statement and evidence examination in the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5800 delivered on February 27, 2004, etc.). C.

According to the records, the court below's order of correction of address, issuance of detention warrant, and request for investigation of materials when the service of a copy of indictment against the defendant is impossible due to unknown address.

arrow