The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Facts of recognition 1) The lower court, in the case of the lower court, concluded the pleadings while the Defendant was present on the date of the first trial, and notified the pronouncement date, but the Defendant did not appear on the above pronouncement date, and did not appear on the third, fourth, and fifth trial date which was again determined by the lower court.

2) In accordance with Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion”), the lower court rendered a decision to serve a public notice on April 1, 2016, and served a public notice of Defendant’s writ of summons on the same date (see, e.g., May 12, 2016) on the same date by serving a public notice of the date fixed again (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da1000, Apr. 1, 2016), on the grounds that the whereabouts of the Defendant cannot be identified, and sentenced

B. The main text of Article 23 of the Act on the Promotion of Litigation may be tried without the statement of the defendant, as prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations, where it is impossible to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant within six months after the receipt of the report on the failure to serve on the defendant in the trial proceedings in the first instance.

Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Litigation Promotion Act provides that "(1) In the event the location of the defendant is not confirmed despite the measures taken pursuant to the provisions of Article 18(2) and (3), the service to the defendant shall be made by means of public notice.

(2) When the defendant fails to appear even after being summoned on the date of trial referred to in paragraph (1) two or more times, the trial may be held without the defendant's statement in accordance with Article 23 of the Act.

“.......”

As above, even if the defendant was summoned by means of public notice service on at least two occasions when the defendant was absent, the court below should have the defendant not attend.