beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though he/she took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service of the defendant shall be made by means of public notice after six months from the date on which the report on the impossibility of service was received, and Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, service of public notice shall be made only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown.
As such, in a case where the actual dwelling place, work place, house phone number, mobile phone number, etc. of the accused appears on the record, an attempt shall be made to deliver them to such actual dwelling place, etc., or to identify the place to be served by contact with telephone number, etc., and it is not allowed to serve them by means of public notice without taking such measures and make a judgment without the statement of the accused (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 201, etc.). According to the record, the court of original judgment attempted to contact with F, etc., which is the contact of the Defendant’s seat on the evidence record prior to rendering a public notice on September 11, 2015.
In light of the above legal principles, the decision of the court below on delivery of public notice and its service based on it are unlawful, and the decision of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as it affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning litigation procedures.
3...