A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

2. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, under Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, even in cases where the Defendant’s summons to the Defendant is served by public notice, the court is required to have the Defendant summoned by public notice not less than twice in order for the Defendant to proceed with the trial without the Defendant’s appearance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 91Mo23, Dec. 17, 1991). According to the records, the court below acknowledged the fact that the Defendant served the Defendant a writ of summons of the 15th trial date on the Defendant by public notice, and the Defendant was absent on the given date, and closed the pleadings on that date (i.e., the court below proceeded with the trial without the Defendant’s appearance, even if the Defendant summoned by public notice was absent on one occasion). Such litigation procedure of the court below is unlawful in violation of Article 19(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and this is no longer likely to maintain the judgment.

The court below served a writ of summons of the 11th to 13th trial date by public notice to the defendant, and the defendant was absent on each of the above dates, but the decision of revocation of service by public notice immediately after the 13th trial date, deeming the decision of revocation of service by public notice was unlawful, and thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant was summoned by public notice or absent on the 11th trial date.

Meanwhile, the evidence presented by the prosecutor, which served as the basis of conviction, is duly adopted on the first trial date of the court below in which the defendant appeared, and the investigation is conducted.