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.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to five million won) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In a case where a judgment of conviction becomes final and conclusive after the defendant was absent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Provisions”), if the defendant is unable to attend a trial due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may request a retrial for conviction pursuant to Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Provisions”).

Therefore, the appellate court shall examine whether there are grounds for the request for retrial under the provisions of the retrial of this case, and there are such grounds.

If recognized, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed, and a new judgment shall be rendered based on the result of the new trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). (b) The lower court determined that the service of the Defendant to the Defendant on October 18, 2017, who was unable to serve the Defendant with a copy, etc. of indictment due to his/her unknown whereabouts, shall be made by means of serving public notice on the Defendant on November 18, 2017; and on November 24, 2017, the lower court conducted an examination of evidence under the status of the Defendant without his/her attendance pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.; and on December 22, 2017, sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5 million.

According to the above facts, there is no reason to prove that the defendant was unable to attend the trial of the court below and there is a reason to request a retrial under the retrial of this case.

The judgment of the court below is no longer able to maintain since the public notice service decision is revoked in the trial and the copy of the indictment is served again, and all the proceedings of the court including the investigation of evidence are newly progress.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for reversal.