beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was unable to attend the trial of the lower court due to a cause not attributable to him. Therefore, there is a ground for requesting a retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
B. In fact, the Defendant was not the removal corporation of this case, but only introduced C to F of the victim with regard to the sale of the motor vehicle trading company newly launched by C, and did not participate in the crime of this case or received money from the victim.
2. Determination:
A. According to the records on the argument of the grounds for request for retrial, the court below sent a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons by means of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and sentenced the defendant to eight months of imprisonment by conducting hearings in the absence of the defendant. ② When the defendant is arrested in the process of the execution of the sentence in accordance with the judgment of the court below formally finalized, the defendant asserted that he was unaware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that the request for recovery of the right to appeal was filed, and that he was not served with the copy of the indictment, etc., as he was immediately arrested by the execution of the sentence in accordance
In full view of this, the defendant was unable to appear in the trial proceedings of the court below for reasons not attributable to him.
may be filed.
Thus, barring any other circumstance, there is a ground to request a retrial under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Litigation due to the defendant's failure to attend the trial of the court below's failure
As such, the Defendant’s argument on this part of the grounds for appeal is with merit (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant in collusion with C and I, and 80 million won from victim F, such as written in the facts charged.