Of them, the part on Defendant F is reversed.

Defendant

F shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of six months.

except that this shall not apply.

A. The prosecutor (limited to Defendant A) committed by the lower court against Defendant A (6 months of imprisonment) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

B. It is unfair that the court below's sentence imposed on the Defendants [the defendant A (6 months of imprisonment), the defendant C (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence), and the defendant F (6 months of imprisonment)] is too unreasonable.

2. Discretionary judgment (Defendant F)

A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a notice may be served when the dwelling, office, or present location of a defendant is unknown. Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Special Rules on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that if the defendant's location is not confirmed at the court of first instance unless the case corresponds to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years for the purpose of identifying the defendant's location, the request for detection of location, the issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures, but the defendant's location is not confirmed within six months from the date of receipt of the report, service on the defendant shall be served by means of public notice.

In addition, the service by the method of public disclosure is not allowed as it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094, May 13, 201). (b) The records reveal that (i) the court below served documents, such as a copy of the indictment, written opinion, and notice for the appointment of the national defense counsel, on the part of the defendant's dwelling (AD Office No. 1003, May 13, 2011), on the part of the defendant's dwelling (AD Office No. 1003, May 25, 2016), but it was impossible for the defendant to serve the documents by the method of public disclosure immediately without arrival of the result of the request for investigation by the head of the police station having jurisdiction over the defendant's dwelling, and it was impossible for the defendant to serve the first trial report on the date of his/her absence on the date of the trial.