The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be 500,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant was merely bound by the key to the object box on the floor, and there is no fact that the victim walking the victim D's platform or was charged with the key to the object by the victim), and unfair sentencing decision 2. The decision of this court

A. Articles 458(2) and 365(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that when the defendant who requested a formal trial fails to appear on the date of trial, the date shall be fixed again, and where the defendant fails to appear on the new date without any justifiable reason, a judgment may be rendered without the defendant's statement. This is a kind of disciplinary provision which considers that the defendant's neglect to present the merits would result in waiver of his/her right to pleading, so if the defendant intends to revert his/her responsibility twice to the defendant, the defendant does not appear in the court without justifiable grounds even after having received a writ of legitimate court date

According to the records, the defendant was notified of the first and second court dates designated by the court of first instance on December 29, 2009, and the defendant was absent on the first and second court date on March 26, 2010, and the second court of first instance sent to the defendant by the court of first instance on March 26, 2010 did not serve the summons of the second court date on which the defendant was sent to the defendant as an addressee's unknown; and the defendant was absent on the second court date notified in advance of April 9, 2010, the court of first instance recognized the fact that the court of first instance revised without the defendant's appearance in accordance with Articles 458(2) and 365(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and found the defendant guilty of a fine of KRW 2,00

Examining the above legal principles in light of the above, the first instance court which rendered a judgment without delivering a writ of summons of the second trial date separately to the defendant, even though it is difficult to deem that the defendant had been absent consecutively on the first and second trial dates notified in a lump sum, alone constitutes a case where the defendant can revise without attendance of the defendant as prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act.