beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. When committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disability.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 63(1) of the same Act ex officio determination, where the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to capital punishment or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for more than ten years in the trial of the first instance, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed by public notice after the request for investigation, issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures were taken to identify the location of the defendant, service
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, etc.). According to the record, the court of original judgment did not make any attempt to serve the defendant's suspect examination protocol against the defendant at his/her workplace or to communicate with telephone at his/her workplace although the defendant's address and telephone number were stated in the police suspect examination protocol against the defendant, and as a result, the court of original judgment attempted to serve the defendant with his/her address on February 15, 2016, and as a result, "the defendant shall not be deemed to have worked at night at night."