The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Ex officio determination

A. Articles 458(2) and 365(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that if the defendant who has requested a formal trial fails to appear on the date of trial, a new date shall be fixed, and if the defendant fails to appear on the new date without any justifiable reason, a judgment may be rendered without the defendant's statement. This is a kind of disciplinary provision which considers that he/she has waived his/her right to pleading on the merits by neglecting the defendant, so if he/she intends to revert his/her responsibility twice to the defendant, he/she need not appear in the court without justifiable grounds after receiving a writ of legitimate court date twice

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do326, Apr. 12, 2002).

Therefore, in order to hold a substitute trial against a defendant who has been absent twice pursuant to the above provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant shall be absent once, and the court shall notify this date again, but the defendant shall also be absent on that date. According to records, the court below rendered a judgment in this case on July 13, 201 on the ground that the defendant was absent consecutively on the date of the first and second public trial, and the defendant was notified collectively on July 13, 201, and on the ground that he had been absent continuously on the date of the first and second public trial, the court below rendered a judgment in the absence of the defendant on July 13, 201. Such decision of the court below is in violation

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is a ground for ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is ruled as follows.

[Dao-written judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court and summary of evidence are the same as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, all of them are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.