The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of larceny is acquitted.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the consistent statement of the victim and the statement of performance of responsibility, etc., on the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of the facts about larceny) by the prosecutor, the court below erred by finding the Defendant not guilty of this part due to misconception of the fact due to the violation of the law, although the Defendant sufficiently proves

2. Determination

A. According to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases”), Article 19(1) of the Special Rules on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Rules”), the court of first instance may serve a public notice only when it is impossible to confirm the Defendant’s whereabouts until six months have passed since the receipt of the report on the Defendant’s failure to serve on the Defendant in the trial proceedings.

According to the record, the lower court decided to serve a public notice on July 7, 2017 on the Defendant, and on January 2, 2017, it did not serve a notice of application for perusal of trial records on the Defendant’s behalf of the addressee. However, since the Defendant appeared on the trial date of January 17, 2017, the lower court appears to have confirmed the Defendant’s whereabouts on the trial date of January 17, 2017.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's writ of summons was not served on February 14, 2017 after he/she appeared on the date of the public trial as of January 17, 2017, even if he/she had confirmed the defendant's whereabouts and again received a report on the failure to serve on the defendant again. Thus, the decision of the court below on July 7, 2017, which was issued at the time when six months have not passed since the defendant was present on the date of the public trial as of January 17, 2017, violates Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases and Article 19 (1) of the Special Cases. The court below served the defendant's writ based on such illegal decision of delivery of public notice and did not appear on

In light of the fact that the sentence without the attendance of the defendant is unlawful in the process, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

except that in this case.