The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The lower court’s sentence (3,500,000 won) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service to the accused shall be made by means of public notice when the location of the accused is not confirmed even though the accused was taken necessary measures to identify the whereabouts of the accused. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service to the accused may be made by public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the accused is unknown.

Therefore, if other dwelling places, contact numbers, etc. of the defendant appear on the record, an attempt should be made to send a writ of summons to the address or to confirm the place where the defendant will receive a summons by contact with his contact address, and it is not allowed to promptly serve a summons by means of public notice delivery and to render a judgment without the defendant's statement (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011, etc.). (b) According to the records of this case, the defendant's address at the suspect interrogation protocol (Evidence No. 46 pages of evidence record) is written as "H in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, and the telephone number of the workplace as "I", and the court below attempted to serve the defendant's workplace to the address by telephone or inquiry.

However, without taking such measures, the Defendant’s location was determined by the method of serving a public notice immediately and without making a statement by the Defendant, by concluding that the Defendant’s location was not confirmed. Such decision of the court below violates the special rules on the promotion of litigation, etc. and its litigation procedure is unlawful.