The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Article 23 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Act No. 9818 of Nov. 2, 2009; hereinafter “Special Act”) and Articles 18(2) and (3), and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that service on the defendant shall be made by means of service by public notice in a case where the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, and service on the defendant may be made by public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice shall be made in a case where other contact numbers, etc. of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice shall be made immediately without taking such measures and it shall not be permitted to make a judgment without the defendant’s statement.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred in holding that the defendant did not appear at the court below's appearance at the court below's order to serve a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons for the trial date based on the illegal service by public notice, and that the defendant did not appear at the court below's appearance at the court below held that the defendant did not appear at the court below's appearance on more than two occasions. As to the grounds that affect the judgment, the court below may decide ex officio on the grounds that are not included in the grounds of appeal. Thus, the court below should take measures to correct the illegality of the first instance court ex officio.

In other words, in such cases, the court below should reverse the judgment of the court of first instance which was unlawful after newly conducting the litigation through legitimate procedures, and render a new judgment based on the results of the hearing, such as the statement and evidence examination

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5800 delivered on February 27, 2004).