The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not recognize the fact that the accident of this case occurred by drinking, the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures not taken after the accident) even though he did not have the intention to commit the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the measures not taken after the accident), and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in finding the defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (the

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and four months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The ex officio judgment prosecutor filed an application with the court for the modification of a bill of amendment to indictment which changes the part of the facts charged as stated in the following facts, and the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the case is changed by this court's permission.

According to Article 19(2) of the Rules on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, even where summons against the defendant is served by public notice, the court is required to have the defendant summoned by public notice twice or more in order for the defendant to be tried without the defendant's appearance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do1094, May 13, 2011; 91Mo23, Dec. 17, 1991). According to the records, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant served a writ of summons of the fifth trial date on the defendant by public notice and immediately proceeded with the trial and closed the arguments on that date after the defendant was absent on that date (i.e., the court below proceeded with the trial without the defendant's appearance, even if the defendant summoned by public notice was absent once). Such litigation procedures of the court below are unlawful in that it did not give the defendant an opportunity to attend in violation of Article 19(2) of the Rules on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.