The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for each crime set forth in the judgment of the court of first and second instance.

A. Since the lower court, as to the judgment of the first instance court, served the Defendant with litigation documents by public notice, the Defendant was judged in absence, and the judgment was sentenced.

Therefore, the court of first instance has grounds for retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, imprisonment for eight months, and imprisonment for three months: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and imprisonment for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Destruction ex officio following consolidation;

A. The appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated in the trial, and since the crimes of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes provided for in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed for each of the above crimes in accordance with Article 38 of

B. In addition, according to the record, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence on December 20, 2017 by the Seoul Central District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 28, 2017. Since the above crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving) and each of the crimes of the lower judgment in Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes provided for in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, each of the above crimes should be sentenced to punishment in consideration of equity in cases where the judgment was rendered at the same time as the above crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving).

C. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. When a person subject to a criminal trial for misapprehension of legal principles moves his/her domicile or subsequent domicile at the time of the institution of public prosecution, he/she may report his/her new domicile to the court or know the progress of the lawsuit.