Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

According to the records of this case, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant was notified of the date, time, and place of each trial date of the first and the second trial and did not appear on the first trial date, but the defendant did not serve on the second trial date, and even though the writ of summons of the defendant as to the second trial date was not served on the addressee's unknown person, the court below concluded the pleadings and sentenced the judgment by proceeding the trial in the absence of the defendant under Articles 458 (2) and 365 (2) of the Criminal Procedure

However, if the defendant wishes to assume the responsibility for non-appearance twice pursuant to Articles 458(2) and 365(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is necessary that the defendant does not appear in the court without justifiable grounds even after having received a summons of legitimate court date on two occasions (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do326, Apr. 12, 2002). As above, if the defendant notified the first and second court date en bloc and fails to serve a separate summons of court date separately, the trial may not proceed even if the defendant has been in continuous absence on the date of the first and second court date.

Nevertheless, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the procedure of the court below which declared the judgment after the conclusion of the trial in the absence of the defendant.

In addition, on August 25, 2010, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 3 million by applying the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act while the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court, which became final and conclusive on November 5, 2010.

However, according to the records, there is no evidence showing the existence of the above final judgment, and there is no specific content of the judgment or the statement of related persons.