beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 6 million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of six million won) declared by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases”) and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to capital punishment or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life exceeding ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor, in the trial of the first instance, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed within six months after receipt of a report on impossibility of service by public notice, even though the case was not punishable by capital punishment or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life, or imprisonment with
According to the records, the lower court: (a) did not serve a writ of summons on October 26, 2018 as a director unknown; and (b) did not serve the order to change the date of trial on November 13, 2018 as an addressee unknown; (c) did not commission the police station having jurisdiction over the Defendant’s domicile to find out the location of the Defendant; and (d) did not commission the Defendant to find out the location of the Defendant, and did not commission the Defendant to find out the location of the second protocol of the lower court. However
On May 10, 2019, the court below made a decision by public notice to the defendant on May 10, 2019, and served the writ of summons by public notice, and ② the court below is recognized as having sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 6 million on July 4, 2019, following the trial conducted with respect to the defendant in accordance with the special provisions of this case while the defendant was absent.
According to the above facts, since the court below decided to serve by public notice without receiving the report on the impossibility of service, the above decision on service by public notice is unlawful, and the procedure of the court below, which was conducted without the defendant's statement, is also unlawful.