beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. The decision of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine the defendant's grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment
Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of service by public notice in cases where the whereabouts of the accused are not verified even though the accused took necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused. In cases where the Defendant’s home phone number, mobile phone number, etc. appear in the record, prior to the determination of service by public notice
It would be in violation of the Act on Special Cases and the Enforcement Rule thereof to conclude that the location of the defendant is not confirmed without taking such measures and promptly serve the defendant by means of service by public notice and make a judgment without the defendant's statement.
(2) According to the court below's decision on February 27, 2004 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5800, Feb. 27, 2004). According to the records, the defendant's suspect examination protocol on the defendant by the prosecutor's office should be recognized that the defendant's cell phone number "F", "G", and "H" were contained in the defendant's cell phone number. In such cases, the court below should have tried to confirm the place of service with the above telephone number prior to the decision on service by public notice, etc., but without taking such measures, the court below should promptly serve the defendant by service by public notice and without making a statement. The court below erred by violating Article 23 of the Act and Articles 18 (2) and (3), and 19 (1)
3. In conclusion, the court below's decision is justified for ex officio reversal.