A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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, the court of original judgment attempted to serve a copy of the indictment against the defendant, a summons of the defendant, etc., which is the address in the indictment, "F in Dongducheon-si" and the resident registration address on the resident registration, and then made a decision by public notice. (c) However, the investigation records of this case can recognize the fact that the contact information of the guarantor is stated as H (H), i.e., the contact information of the guarantor.

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court concluded that the Defendant’s whereabouts cannot be confirmed immediately without taking such measures despite having to have attempted to contact with the above contact point prior to making a decision by public notice, and served documents related to the lawsuit by public notice, thereby confirming the Defendant’s whereabouts.