The judgment below

Of the above, the part concerning Defendant B is reversed.

Defendant

A fine for negligence 1.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence (1,000,000 won) declared by the court below to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances asserted by Defendant A on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, even if there is no change in circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing since the lower judgment was rendered, and considering that Defendant A’s assertion on the grounds of appeal was based on the records and changes in the records of this case and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment.

B. We examine the appeal filed by Defendant B ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

According to Article 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the defendant does not attend, the court shall not revise it, and according to Articles 27 and 28 of the same Act, the representative represents the litigation, and if there is no representative, the special representative appointed by the court shall perform the duties of the representative.

Therefore, when the defendant is a corporation, the representative or special representative shall be present and the amendment shall not be made without his attendance. However, another representative may be present pursuant to the proviso of Article 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, according to Article 126 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, when a corporation intends to have a representative attend, a document proving the granting of the power of representation must be submitted to the

According to the records, the representative director of Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) was changed from Jun. 19, 2015 to H on June 19, 2015, and the fact that Defendant B’s representative director was not present at the trial date of the lower court, which was proceeding after the change of Defendant B’s representative director, is recognized. Thus, the lower court erred by violating Article 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act by proceeding a trial procedure while Defendant B was absent.

In this respect, the part on Defendant B among the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal is without merit, and the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.