The punishment of the accused shall be determined by six months of imprisonment.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. The judgment of the court below that judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, even though it is not recognized that the defendant had the ability to repay and intent at the time of receiving the instant loan, since the defendant had no capacity and intent to do so.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 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 death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years at the trial of the court of first instance, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed at the expiration of six months from the date of receipt of the report on the failure to serve on the defendant, even though the investigation was commissioned to identify his/her whereabouts, issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures, the service on the defendant shall be made by means of serving public notice. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by serving public notice if his/her residence, office, or whereabouts is unknown.

The Act stipulates.

Therefore, in the event that the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, an attempt should be made to confirm and regard the place to be served with the above telephone number, and the delivery by the method of public disclosure immediately without taking such measures is not permitted as it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 201). According to the records, the court below decided to publicly notify the documents of the lawsuit against the defendant and ordered the defendant to appear on the date of the third and fourth public trial without the defendant's statement, and sentenced the judgment on the fifth public trial date without the defendant's statement, while the defendant was summoned by the method of public announcement and did not appear on the date of the public trial, and on the other hand, the court below held the fifth public trial on the date