The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the accident of mistake of facts, the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though he did not know the fact that he had concealed the vehicle driving by the victim, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the records, upon ex officio review, the Defendant filed a claim for recovery of the right to request a formal trial against the summary order (No. 2009 high-level 39458 of this Court) with the court on May 11, 2011 by this court on May 2, 201, and received a notice en bloc as to the 1 and 2th trial date of the formal trial with the decision of acceptance on May 11, 2011. The court below acknowledged the fact that the Defendant was not present even on the second trial date when the Defendant did not appear and received a separate writ of summons without being present on the first trial date, and that he sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5 million on the second trial date when the Defendant was not present at the court under Article 458(2) and Article 365(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. According to Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 458 of the same Act, if a defendant who has filed a request for a formal trial against a summary order fails to appear in the court on the date of the formal trial procedure, the date shall be fixed again, and if the defendant fails to appear in the court on the new date without a justifiable reason, he/she may render a judgment without a statement of the defendant. This is a kind of restrictive provision which considers that he/she shall waives his/her right of pleading on the merits by his/her neglect, so if he/she intends to assume the responsibility for the second absence on two occasions, he/she need not appear in the court without a justifiable reason after receiving a summons of due date of trial (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do326, Apr. 12, 2002).