A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

2. We examine the legality of the decision of the court below by public notice ex officio.

A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, when the whereabouts of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant was taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant, service by public notice shall be made in the latter case. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice shall be made only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. Thus, if other contact numbers of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice shall be conducted immediately without taking such measures, and it shall not be permitted to serve by public notice and render a judgment without the defendant's statement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). (B)

According to the records of this case, the investigation report (in 4:80 pages of investigation record) is written in the defendant's residence, "M at Jeju M, 302" as the defendant's residence, and "O" as the contact point of the defendant's wife N, and the debt repayment plan (in 154 pages of investigation record) can be recognized as being written in P as the contact point of the defendant.

C. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s location could not be confirmed immediately without taking such measures, and that documents related to the lawsuit, such as a duplicate of the indictment and the summons of the Defendant, should be served by public notice prior to making a decision of service by public notice, even though the Defendant should have tried to contact the contact point of the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife.