A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

2. According to Article 19(2) of the Rules on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings, even in a case where summons of the defendant against the defendant in the trial proceedings of the first instance is made by public notice, the court is required to have the defendant summoned by public notice for the trial without the defendant's statement not to be present at least twice.

Therefore, if the defendant who was summoned through service by public notice is absent, the trial procedure can proceed with when the defendant is absent only after the defendant was designated again by public notice and re-exploited by public notice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 91Mo23 Decided December 17, 1991, etc.). According to the records of this case, the court below delayed pleadings as the documents of lawsuit, such as a copy of indictment, against the accused, are not served as a closed document, from September 25, 2009 to December 4, 2009, and decided to serve the Defendant’s bill of indictment, Defendant’s writ of summons, etc. by public notice, and then served the Defendant’s writ of summons by public notice on April 16, 2010.

In addition, on April 30, 2010, as the defendant was absent on the fifth trial date, the court revised without the attendance of the defendant and concluded the proceedings after completing the investigation of evidence, and on May 18, 2010, sentenced the defendant to six months of imprisonment.

According to the above facts and legal principles, since the defendant had been absent on the fifth day of the trial on which the writ of summons was served by public notice, the court below has designated a new trial date and re-exploited the defendant by public notice, and the defendant has been absent on such date.