The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentence of the lower court (five million won a penalty) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The lower court, on July 21, 2014, sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5 million on July 21, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant’s whereabouts cannot be confirmed and served a copy of the indictment by means of public notice delivery pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion”) and the Defendant was absent, and sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million.

2) After the period of appeal against the lower judgment was expired, the Defendant filed a petition for recovery of his right of appeal with the purport that he was unaware of the fact that the trial was not held on the date of trial.

3) On May 18, 2015, the court rendered a decision to reinstate the defendant’s right to appeal with the purport that the defendant’s failure to appeal within the appeal period would result in a cause not attributable to the defendant.

B. The ground for appeal for the right of appeal filed by the defendant is alleged to have a ground for the request for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Litigation Promotion Act, and it is reasonable to deem that the ground for appeal corresponding to "when there is a ground for request for retrial" under Article 361-5 (1) 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act is alleged. Even according to the record, there is no reason for the request for retrial under the provisions of the Litigation Promotion Act because the defendant was unable to appear in the trial

Recognized.

The appellate court, as an appellate court, shall proceed with new litigation procedures, such as delivering a copy of indictment, etc. again to the defendant, reverse the judgment below and render a new judgment in accordance with the result of a new trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. The judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant's unfair assertion of sentencing, since there are grounds for reversal ex officio as above.