The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. According to Articles 370 and 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court may not open the court without the attendance of the defendant. However, according to Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the defendant fails to appear in the court on the appellate court date, the court may render a ruling without the statement of the defendant when the defendant fails to appear in the court on the new date without justifiable grounds

However, in order to render a judgment without a statement of a defendant, the requirement that the defendant does not appear in the court without justifiable reasons after receiving a summons of legitimate court date.

In addition, according to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service by public notice to the defendant can only be made when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown. Thus, if the defendant's office telephone number or portable phone number is shown in the record, necessary measures are taken to identify the residence, etc. of the defendant, such as identifying the place of service after contact with the above telephone number, and immediately rendering a judgment without the defendant's statement without such attempt is not permitted as it violates Articles 63(1) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3892 Decided July 12, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4926 Decided July 22, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4926 Decided February 12, 2015, etc.). 2. Review of the records reveals the following facts.

① The first instance court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no proof to prove the facts charged in the instant case, and the prosecutor appealed.

② The lower court served the Defendant’s written indictment and the written judgment of the first instance on the grounds that the notice of the receipt of the trial record, etc. was sent to the Defendant’s resident address in the commercial city M (hereinafter “Defendant’s resident address”) but on the ground that the Defendant’s resident does not receive the written indictment, and that