Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

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

Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2), 18(3), and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of serving public notice when the location of the accused is not verified even though the accused has taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused, and that service on the accused may be made by public notice only when the dwelling, office, and present whereabouts of the accused are unknown.

Therefore, if other contact details of the defendant appear on the record, it should be viewed that the defendant's attempt is made to confirm the place to contact with the contact address and to regard the place to be served, and it is not allowed to promptly serve the notice by means of public disclosure and make a judgment without the defendant's statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). According to the records of this case, the defendant's police opinion on the defendant's cell phone as the defendant's cell phone and reply following the police's request for provision of communication data (the investigation record is 72 pages), and the fact that "L" is described on the defendant's cell phone in the defendant's name as the defendant's address.

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court attempted to communicate with the aforementioned mobile phone and home-based telephone prior to rendering the decision of public disclosure service.

Although the defendant did not take such measures, it is necessary to confirm the location of the defendant because the documents related to the lawsuit, such as a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons, are served by means of public notice.