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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Articles 370 and 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court may not revise the law without the attendance of the defendant. However, according to Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the defendant fails to appear in the court on the trial date at the appellate trial, the court may render a judgment without the statement of the defendant when the defendant fails to appear in the court on the trial date at the appellate trial date without justifiable grounds.

Therefore, in order to render a judgment without the defendant's statement, it is necessary that the defendant does not appear in the court without justifiable reasons even after receiving a summons of legitimate trial date.

In addition, according to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, public disclosure service for the accused can be made only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the accused is unknown. Thus, in the case where the Defendant’s home number or mobile phone number is shown on the record, it should be viewed as an attempt to confirm the place where the service is to be made by contact with the above telephone number.

Therefore, without taking such measures, delivery by means of public disclosure and making a judgment without the defendant's statement is not allowed as it violates Articles 63 (1) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, this legal principle also applies to the case where the court served by the method of public notice as the defendant knew that the lawsuit has been pending in the appellate court because he did not report his place of residence to the court and thereby did not serve it accordingly.

This is because the court's decision based on the above illegal public disclosure service procedure is not legitimate because the defendant's failure to report his/her residence in spite of the clear illegality of the procedure for the public disclosure service by the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12430, Jan. 28, 2010, etc.). 2. The record reveals the following facts.

(a).