beta
Text
All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.
As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, it is eight months of imprisonment and No. 2 of the judgment.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal (No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for a crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance and for a crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court of second instance for a crime No. 8 months and for a crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court of second instance):
Judgment ex officio
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Special Rules Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years in the trial of the court of first instance, if the location of the defendant is not verified after six months have passed since the receipt of the report on the impossibility of service by public notice even though the request for investigation, issuance of arrest warrant, or other necessary measures were taken in order to verify the location of the defendant.
Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it is necessary to have an attempt to contact the above telephone number with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 2011). According to the records, the first instance court’s judgment acknowledged that the Defendant did not commission the Defendant to detect the address, etc. recorded in the first instance trial record, etc. and served the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and thus, the judgment of the court below is unlawful on the ground that the litigation procedure is in violation of the law and affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Article 39 of the Criminal Act