Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, according to the records, the court below only attempted to communicate only to the mobile phone number (C) of the defendant as stated in the indictment, but it can be recognized that the defendant's telephone number (D and evidence record 19 pages) recorded in the police interrogation protocol against the defendant was decided to serve public notice on November 23, 2015 without attempting to contact. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the decision of service of public notice by the court below was made by omitting part of necessary measures to confirm the defendant's whereabouts, and thus, the judgment below which was pronounced in the absence of the defendant was unlawful since the litigation procedure affected the judgment in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed and it is so decided as follows.

[Judgment of the court below] The summary of criminal facts and evidence against the defendant is identical to that of each corresponding column of the court below's judgment. Thus, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act selection of punishment, and selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Act of the Provisional Payment Order: ① Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months with prison labor due to the continued injury in 2010 and committed the instant crime again under the name of 19 times, and the Defendant stated to the effect that he did not recognize his mistake in the police (which is the 22th page of the evidence record), and the victim was subject to death or repayment of damage.