The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

However, for the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: The defendant did not deceiving the victim D in relation to the fraud.

In relation to embezzlement, the defendant is not in the position of a person who keeps the victim H's articles or money, and the amount of damage in embezzlement was calculated excessively.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. Improper sentencing: The lower court’s punishment is too heavy.

2. Judgment ex officio prior to the grounds for appeal by the defendant;

According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service of public notice to the accused in criminal proceedings may be conducted only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the accused is unknown. In the event that the actual dwelling, place of work, or the home phone number or mobile phone number of the accused appears on the record, the attempt should be made to confirm the place to be served with such actual dwelling, etc. or contact with the phone number, and it is unlawful to serve the accused by the method of public notice and make a judgment without the accused’s statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12430, Jan. 28, 2010). According to the record, although the Defendant’s contact address (NNN, and P phoneO) was written in the indictment against the accused, the lower court did not take measures to confirm the place to be served by contact the above telephone number on May 15, 2017, and can recognize the fact that the Defendant did not appear at the court and concluded the pleadings.

Therefore, the notice service by the court below is unlawful, and the judgment of the court below which the defendant was sentenced to a failure to appear in accordance with such unlawful notice service order has affected the conclusion of the judgment.