The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, and for the crime No. 2 of the judgment.

Summary of Reasons for Appeal

A. In the case of a crime of Article 2 of the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts, there is no fact that the defendant deceiving the victim G to have the right to obtain permission for the soil exploitation project, thereby deceiving KRW 100 million.

The Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim G to the account of the corporation operated by the Defendant at the request of the victim G, and returned all the amount of KRW 100 million to the above victim.

B. The judgment of the court below on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (the first crime on the market: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and the second crime in its ruling: imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable;

According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 18 and Article 19 of the Special Rules Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service by public notice shall be made when the location of a defendant is not confirmed at the time of receipt of a report on impossibility of service by public notice, even though the defendant was not a case falling under death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor in the first instance trial.

Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it is necessary to have an attempt to contact the above telephone number with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094, May 13, 2011). Before determining the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal, the court below ex officio examined the grounds for appeal. The court below entrusted the Defendant with the detection of the location of the address on which the Defendant stated.