2. The prosecutor of the judgment submitted a written request for inquiry, a written notification, etc. as evidence of the facts charged in the instant case.

However, the above evidence alone can only recognize the fact that the defendant was found to have failed to pay a penalty of KRW 50,000 by the deadline for the second payment, even though he was discovered on May 12, 2015 due to the act of in-service activity under Article 3 (1) 39 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and he was notified of imposition of the penalty of KRW 50,000, and in fact, the defendant was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the facts charged that "the defendant did not pay a fine of KRW 50,00 within the said deadline" at the time and place above.

It is insufficient to see otherwise, and there is no other evidence to prove this (the actual amount of damage is unclear so far). Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no evidence of a crime, the defendant cannot obtain the consent of the defendant since he did not appear on the sentencing date, the public announcement of the judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act is not ordered, since it constitutes a case where the defendant cannot obtain the consent of the defendant.