The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to think of the loss of the Defendant and find a master, the Defendant was arrested by a police box with the instant bank, and thus, there was no intention to larceny against the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (1) Articles 458(2) and 365(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that when the defendant who has 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 justifiable grounds, a judgment may be rendered without the defendant's statement. This is a kind of disciplinary provision which considers that the defendant has waived his right to pleading on the merits by his neglect of the defendant, and if the defendant intends to assume the responsibility for the second absence on two occasions, he need not appear in the court without justifiable grounds after receiving a summons of legitimate trial date twice.

(2) According to the records, in the case of this case, the court below notified the defendant en bloc of the first and second court dates and sentenced the defendant to the court without his appearance on the ground that the defendant had been absent on the first and second court dates, and the defendant had been absent on the second court dates on the second and second court dates, in order to make a substitute trial against the defendant who had been absent on two occasions pursuant to the above provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do326, Apr. 12, 2002).

However, since the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, the following is the defendant.

The paragraph will be examined.

(b) mistake of facts;