1. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to capital punishment, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed at the expiration of six months after receipt of the report on impossibility of service by public notice, the service on the defendant shall be made by public notice.

Therefore, it is not permissible to promptly serve a service by public notice and make a judgment without a statement of the defendant, without taking necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant or without taking such measures as contact with the defendant and confirming the place where service is to be made, even though the contact information of the defendant appears in the record.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094, May 13, 201). In addition, inasmuch as the first instance court served a copy of indictment and a writ of summons of trial date based on the illegal decision of service by public notice and deemed that the defendant was not present at least twice and rendered a trial without the defendant’s appearance, this is not the defendant’s opportunity to appear, and the litigation procedure is unlawful, and the appellate court may ex officio render a judgment on the grounds that affect the judgment, even in cases where the grounds that were not included in the grounds for appeal, the appellate court shall ex officio take measures to correct the

In other words, the appellate court is illegal after it newly conducted litigation in accordance with legitimate procedures.