2. The crime of Article 2 of the decision of the court below is committed.

The prosecutor appealed on this issue, and the trial before the remand was reversed the part concerning the crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court below and sentenced the defendant to 8 months again, and the prosecutor's appeal on the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below was dismissed.

In this regard, the defendant appealed again, and the appellate court reversed the part on the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below prior to the remand and dismissed the remaining appeals by the defendant.

Therefore, since the part concerning the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below is already separated and finalized, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., g., e., e.,

3. Ex officio determination

A. The record reveals the following facts. 1) The Defendant was present on March 9, 2010 and was present on the sixth trial date, but did not appear on September 15, 2010 on the date of the pronouncement of the indictment by public notice on May 23, 2011, following the resumption of the pleadings and the detection of the Defendant’s whereabouts, and the Defendant’s decision of service by public notice on May 23, 201 to the Defendant was made on May 12, 201 without the attendance of the Defendant.

2) Meanwhile, on October 22, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court 2010 order 5824 decided October 22, 2010 issued the Defendant with respect to the preparation of qualification-based private documents, and the display of qualification-based private documents (hereinafter “2010 order 5824 case”).

This additional indictment was made, and the court below did not take measures such as examining whether the service can be made to the address of the defendant stated in the indictment or identifying the location of the defendant through the request for detection of location, etc.