Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, service by public notice may be conducted when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown. If the address, telephone number, or portable phone number, etc. presumed to be the dwelling of the defendant appears in the record, an attempt should be made to deliver it to the above address or to confirm the place of service by contact with the above telephone number, and immediately render a judgment without the defendant's statement is not permitted as it violates Article 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, Article 18 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings provides that if the service of the accused is impossible, the presiding judge shall take necessary measures such as the request of investigation, issuance of arrest warrant and other necessary measures to identify his/her location.

According to the records, when the defendant submitted a request for formal trial on August 24, 2009, he stated the "YY M in the YY in the YM in the YY, NO, P" as a telephone number available for contact, and the court of original judgment served the defendant on the above address as stated in the formal trial request, and Q Q was served on the defendant's mother, but the defendant did not appear on the first trial date, and the court of original judgment requested the prosecutor to correct the defendant's address, and the prosecutor demanded the prosecutor to submit the "R at interested time" to the defendant's domicile at the corrected domicile, but the defendant was stated as transferred on February 26, 2008 to the corrected domicile. This is the fact that the defendant submitted the above request for formal trial on August 24, 2009, and the court of original judgment is the previous domicile at the corrected domicile.