The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. In the first instance trial proceedings, Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 18 and Article 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not apply to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor exceeding ten years long-term, in order to verify the whereabouts of the defendant, if the whereabouts of the defendant is not verified by the request of investigation, issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures, even though the request of investigation, or issuance of a detention warrant, etc. was taken to identify the whereabouts of the defendant, the service for the defendant may be made by public notice, and Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice may be made

Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it is necessary to have an attempt to contact the above telephone number with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 2011). According to the records, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s litigation documents were served by public notice, and then the Defendant was summoned by public notice and was not present at the third and fourth public trial day, which led to the fourth public trial without the Defendant’s statement. On the other hand, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant’s contact information was written in the police interrogation protocol (Evidence No. 49 page of the evidence record) of the Defendant on the fourth public trial date in the evidence record submitted on the fourth public trial of the lower public trial.

In light of the above legal principles.