According to Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act, when a defendant does not appear in the court on the trial date, the date shall be fixed again, and when the defendant fails to appear in the court on the new trial date without justifiable grounds, a judgment may be rendered without the statement

According to the records, the first instance court ordered the service of the defendant by means of lawful service by public notice, and ordered the defendant to appear in the court of first instance by means of service by public notice. Since the defendant did not appear in the court on the trial date two or more occasions after being summoned by means of service by public notice, the court of first instance concluded the trial without the defendant's statement and sentenced the first instance judgment by closing the pleading. The court of first instance also sent the notification of the receipt of the trial record to the address of the defendant re-amended by the prosecutor, but it is impossible to serve the notification of the receipt of the trial record, etc., while the defendant's cell phone does not call even with the defendant's cell phone, and as a result of the request to detect the location of the chief of the police station, the court ordered the service of the defendant to the method

In light of the above legal provisions, the above measures of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

In addition, the argument that the amount of defraudation of the facts charged of this case was calculated by mistake is only the first time in the final appeal and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.