The part on the defendant and the second judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months and a fine not exceeding five thousand won.

1. The sentence imposed by each court below on the accused of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and the second instance court: the fine of 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the case of this court 2013No1935, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the case of this court 2013No2170, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, was consolidated in the oral proceedings of the court of second instance. Each of the crimes of the court 1 and the court 2013No2170, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated pursuant to Article 38(1

B. In addition, according to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the dwelling, office, or present location of the 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 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that service by public notice shall be made only when the defendant's whereabouts are not confirmed until six months have passed from the date of receipt of the report, although the defendant's whereabouts were taken necessary measures to confirm the defendant's whereabouts, and in light of the above six-month period is the minimum period established to protect the defendant's right to trial and right to attack and defense, "the time of receipt of the report" shall be strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4983, Nov. 14, 2003).

According to the records, the defendant's claim to recover the right to formal trial on September 26, 201 and the claim for formal trial against the summary order of the Incheon District Court 2009 High Court 2009 High Court 19757, which was made by service by public notice.