The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (Article 2018 Godan361, Feb. 1, 201) stated in the facts charged around September 23, 2017 as around September 30, 2017, but appears to be a clerical error on September 23, 2017, and there is no disadvantage in exercising the defendant’s right of defense. Thus, ex officio correction of the date of this part of the crime to September 23, 2017.

In S there was no fact that the payment was made by using the credit card of a corporate bank (credit card number: N. hereinafter referred to as "the credit card of this case") owned by the victim K.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the court below: (a) served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and served the defendant with a trial in the absence of the defendant; (b) alleged that the defendant was unable to receive a copy of the indictment, etc. while claiming recovery of his/her right to appeal and was unaware of the fact that the judgment was pronounced; and (c) found that the defendant was unable to appeal within the appeal period due to

Therefore, it is recognized that there is no reason attributable to the defendant due to the failure of the court below to attend the trial proceedings, and there is a reason to request a retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Accordingly, this court shall proceed with new litigation procedures, such as serving a duplicate of indictment on the defendant, and render a new judgment according to the result of new trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 2

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is considered:

3...