The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

According to Article 19(2) of the Regulations on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Litigation, etc. ex officio, even if the summons of the defendant is made by public notice in the trial proceedings of the first instance, the court is required to have the defendant summoned by public notice for the trial without the defendant's statement in order to hold the trial without the defendant's statement more than twice.

Therefore, in cases where a defendant who was summoned by public notice was absent, the trial proceedings can proceed with without the defendant's absence only after the defendant had been absent by means of re-determination of the trial date by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do1094, May 13, 201; 201Mo23, Dec. 17, 1991). According to the records, the court below, after the defendant was absent from being served with a writ of summons of the first trial date, served the summons of the second trial date with "Mapo-si," which is the address of the above service summons, but it was impossible for the defendant to be served with the summons of the second trial date by public notice, "Mapo-si," which is the corrected address of the defendant at the 0th trial date, and it was impossible to serve the summons of the second trial date by public notice, which was served with the defendant's address at the 0th trial date by public notice, and the court below ordered the defendant to be served with the third trial date by public notice.

According to the above facts and legal principles, the above facts are examined.