The guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of eight million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (No. 1: a fine of KRW 3 million, and a fine of KRW 5 million in the lower court) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) by mistake of facts, the first instance court found the Defendant not guilty of larceny even if the Defendant’s intent to obtain unlawful acquisition was sufficiently recognized.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. As to the judgment of the court below, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above appeal cases.

Among the judgment below against the defendant, each crime of conviction in the part of the judgment below against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence shall be imposed within the scope of a limited term of punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part of the judgment below's conviction cannot

B. In criminal proceedings of the judgment of the court below on the ground of ex officio reversal, service by public notice to the defendant can be made only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown. Thus, in a case where other contact numbers of the defendant appear in the record, the attempt to confirm the place of service through contact with the contact address and to regard it as the place of service shall be made. It is not allowed to serve the defendant by public notice immediately without taking such measures and make a judgment without the defendant'

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007). According to the records, the second instance court's judgment on the following facts: (a) the defendant's writ of summons is not served; (b) the defendant's address as stated in the indictment (N in the indictment) is not served; and (c) the defendant's report on the impossibility of service arrives, and (d) the prosecutor's revised address