The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Article 266 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “When a public prosecution is instituted, the court shall serve without delay a copy of the indictment on the defendant or his/her defense counsel: Provided, That the service shall be made not later than five days prior to the date of the first public trial.” Thus, if the first public trial is conducted without serving the defendant or his/her defense counsel with a copy of the indictment, it constitutes a violation of the statutes governing the

In such a case, if the defendant was given an opportunity to sufficiently state the facts charged without raising an objection in the court of first instance, there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) In a case where the first instance court summonss a defendant through service by public notice, and the first instance court proceedings were conducted while the defendant was not present on the trial date, the act of litigation conducted in such unlawful trial proceedings is invalid. In such a case, the appellate court shall serve the defendant or his defense counsel with a copy of the indictment and render a new litigation through lawful procedures, and then render a judgment again on the basis of the result of the trial, such as statement and examination of evidence, etc., in the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9498 Decided April 24, 2014). B.

The record reveals the following facts.

(1) The lower court served the Defendant with a copy of the indictment, a notice of the appointment of state appointed defense counsel, a writ of summons of trial date, etc. F 101 Dong 407, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, which is the domicile of the indictment, and the Defendant G received.

(2) The Defendant did not appear on the first trial date, and thereafter, was not served due to the absence of a closed text and the absence of the recipient of the summons sent to his address.

(3) The court below made a decision on service by public notice to the defendant and served the summons of the trial date by public notice.