The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the records, a writ of summons of the court below 1, 3, and 4th trial date against the defendant was not served for the reason that the addressee is unknown, and the writ of summons of the second trial date was served lawfully by the resident inquiry room of the defendant, but the defendant was absent on the above two-time trial date, and the writ of summons of the five trial date was served on the defendant by service, but the defendant was not present on the five-time trial date again, and the court below revised the summons without the attendance of the defendant pursuant to Articles 365 and 458(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the five trial date and concluded the pleadings and sentenced the judgment on the trial date.

However, according to Articles 365 and 458(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, where a defendant who requested a formal trial fails to appear in court on the date without justifiable grounds even though he/she was unable to appear in court on the date again, a judgment may be rendered without a statement of the defendant. Thus, in order to render a judgment without a statement in the absence of the defendant, the case must fall under the case where the defendant was notified of a legitimate court date but failed to appear in court on two consecutive occasions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1616, Jun. 28, 2012). The case does not fall under the case where the defendant did not appear in court on two consecutive days, but on two consecutive court days, and where the defendant was absent on five consecutive trial date, he/she cannot proceed without a statement of the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which revised the evidence without the attendance of the defendant on the five-time trial date and concluded the pleading is erroneous in violation of Articles 365 and 458 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. In addition, according to the records, the defendant was at the Ansan District Court on February 3, 2010.