beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant filed a request for recovery of the right to request a formal trial against the summary order (No. 2011 High Court Order No. 201 High Court Order No. 18075) by this Court on March 30, 2012, and received a joint notification as to the first and second trial dates on April 13, 2012, together with the decision of acceptance on April 13, 2012. The lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant did not appear on the second trial date when the Defendant did not appear at the first trial and did not receive a separate writ of summons, but on the second trial date when the Defendant was notified of the previous notice, pursuant to Articles 458(2) and 365(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
According to Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 458 of the same Act, if a defendant who is dissatisfied with a summary order and requested a formal trial fails to appear in the court on the date of the formal trial procedure, the date shall be fixed again, and if the defendant fails to appear in the court on the new date without justifiable grounds, it shall be judged without the defendant's statement. This is a kind of restrictive provision which considers that the defendant waives his right to pleading on the merits due to the defendant's neglect to appear in the court on the new date, and if the defendant intends to assume the responsibility twice in the absence, he need not appear in the court without justifiable grounds (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do326, Apr. 12, 2002). Accordingly, in order to hold a trial on a substitute for the defendant who has been absent on two occasions pursuant to the above provision, the defendant shall be absent on one occasion once in accordance with the language and text of the above provision, and the court shall re