Of the original judgment of the first instance, the remaining parts and the second and third original judgments, excluding the part which rejected an application for compensation order.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Article 1: 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and the second judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor and the third judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor and six months of imprisonment) of each court below is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Each appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated in the consolidated trial, and each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in cases where the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “the Litigation Promotion Act”), and Articles 18 and 19 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc.”) provide that in the trial of the first instance, if the location of the defendant is not verified within six months after the receipt of the report on impossibility of service to the defendant, even though the request for investigation, issuance of a warrant of arrest, or other necessary measures was taken to verify the location of the defendant, service by public notice is not made.

Therefore, it is not allowed to immediately serve a service by public notice and make a judgment without the statement of the defendant without any proper measures necessary to confirm the location of the defendant or without any other contact information of the defendant in the record, even though the contact information was contacted with the contact information and the service place was confirmed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do1094, May 13, 201; 2014Do5642, Jul. 10, 2014). According to the records, the first instance court’s summons is not closed.