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 main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s penalty of KRW 4,00,000 (fine 4,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, Article 455(3) and Article 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act do not change without the attendance of the defendant in the ordinary trial proceedings against a summary order. However, pursuant to Articles 458(2) and 365 of the same Act, when the defendant does not appear in the court on the date of public trial proceedings, the new date is set and if the defendant does not appear in the court on the new date without justifiable grounds, the court may render a judgment without the statement of the defendant. Thus, 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 grounds even after receiving a summons of legitimate court date.

In addition, according to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service by public notice to the defendant can be conducted only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown. Thus, in the event the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number is shown in the record, an attempt should be made to identify the place where service is to be made after contact with the above telephone number, and immediately issue a service by public notice without taking such measures and make a decision without the defendant's statement is not permitted as it violates Articles 63(1), 458(2), and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(2) In light of the record, the court below’s determination on December 8, 2011, based on the following: (a) the Defendant’s domicile as stated in the indictment and the Defendant’s domicile as corrected by the prosecutor, sent a writ of summons of the court date in sequence to the Defendant’s domicile; (b) the Defendant was unable to serve the writ of summons due to lack of written closure; and (c) the lower court, on July 13, 2012, entrusted the head of the Suwon Police Station having jurisdiction over the Defendant’s residence with the detection of the Defendant’s whereabouts on September 3, 2