The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The crimes of KRW 1,00,00,000, as stated in the judgment of the defendant, are the crimes of KRW 2 and 3 of the judgment.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one million won penalty and one million won imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio determination.

According to the records, ① the Defendant’s address was indicated as “M apartment at the time, 309 Dong 406” in the indictment, ② the original court sent a duplicate of indictment to the above address several times, but was not served (not on October 1, 2015, and each closed door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door) was confirmed as follows: (i) the Defendant’s cell phone number (N) was confirmed as 13; (iii) the Defendant’s address was discovered as being living in the above address for 2 years (on November 11, 2015, a third party, who was not related with the Defendant, was found to have been present at the above address for 10 years; and (iv) the Defendant’s address was announced to the public on November 12, 2015, which was issued by the court on June 16, 2016.”

Where it is recognized that the defendant does not reside in the address stated in the indictment at the time of prosecution, the court may not order the prosecutor to correct the address and immediately deliver the notice without demanding the correction (see Supreme Court Order 84Mo74, Jan. 16, 1985, etc.) pursuant to Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, in case where the defendant is found not to have resided in the address stated in the indictment (see Supreme Court Order 84Mo74, Jan. 16, 1985, etc.