logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.28 2014노1409
업무방해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. On February 24, 2014, the Defendant, who was dissatisfied with the lower judgment and filed an appeal on February 24, 201, did not submit the written notification of the receipt of the trial record by this court on June 11, 2014, and did not state the grounds for appeal even though the written notification of the receipt of the trial record is not submitted within 20

2. According to Articles 458(2) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act of the ex officio determination, when a defendant does not appear in the court on the date of public trial proceedings, a new date may be set and when the defendant does not appear in the court on the new date without justifiable grounds, a judgment may be rendered without the defendant's statement. Accordingly, in order to render a judgment without the defendant's statement, the defendant need not appear in the court without justifiable grounds even

In addition, according to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service by public notice to the defendant can be made only when the dwelling, office, present address of the defendant is unknown. Thus, in the event that the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number is shown on the record, an attempt to identify the place of service by public notice shall be made by contact with the above telephone number, and it shall not be permitted as it violates Articles 63(1), 458(2), and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act to promptly serve service by public notice and make a decision without the defendant's statement.

The court below should have tried to contact the defendant's mobile phone numbers (E) recorded in the record, such as summary indictment, formal trial request, and police interrogation protocol of the defendant. However, without taking such measures, the court below concluded that the defendant's location cannot be known only due to the result of the request for detection of location following the prosecutor's correction of address, and immediately determined by service by public notice.

arrow