The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to five million won) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Where a judgment becomes final and conclusive after having been convicted of a defendant under the absence of the defendant pursuant to the main sentence of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., if the defendant is unable to attend a trial due to a cause not attributable to him/her, a request for a retrial on the conviction may be made pursuant to Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “the

Therefore, the appellate court shall examine whether there are grounds for the request for retrial under the provisions of the retrial of this case, and there are such grounds.

If recognition is made, the judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed, and a new judgment shall be rendered in accordance with the result of the new trial, such as serving a duplicate of indictment, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). (b) The lower court determined that the service of the Defendant on June 18, 2018, who was unable to serve the Defendant with a copy, etc. of indictment due to his/her unknown whereabouts, shall be made by serving the Defendant on public notice, and on July 23, 2018, the lower court conducted an examination of evidence on the part of the Defendant without his/her presence pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5 million on August 8,

According to the above facts, there is no reason to prove that the defendant was unable to attend the trial of the court below and there is a reason to request a retrial under the retrial of this case.

The judgment of the court below is no longer able to maintain since the public notice service decision is revoked in the trial and the copy of the indictment is served again, and all the proceedings of the court including the investigation of evidence are newly progress.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above.