A. The lower court’s service by public notice and its proceedings are unlawful as it did not go through service due to the address indicated in the protocol of suspect examination of erroneous facts in the prosecution, and the Defendant received the instant paper of salary in order to exchange for water or sell it in accordance with the victim’s promise, and did not deceiving the victim, and the instant paper of salary does not have property value in the instant paper of salary, such as the need to have VIP cards and undergo a separate procedure for change of name.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law in violation of law and misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that in a case where the location of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service on the defendant shall be made by public notice. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by public notice when the domicile, office, or present

According to the records, the court below sent a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons of the defendant, etc. to the defendant's domicile, "Y apartment 204, Y apartment-gu, Macheon-gu, Macheon-gu," which is the defendant's domicile as stated in the indictment on November 2, 201, but it was impossible to serve the defendant due to the defendant's unknown whereabouts on November 3, 201, ordered the prosecutor to rectify his address. The prosecutor's corrected address on November 15, 201 was also the above address. In other words, the defendant's writ of summons was sent to K apartment 204, but it was impossible to serve the defendant due to the addressee's unknown address, the court below entrusted