A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (No. 1: 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court, No. 2: 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance court and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant following the consolidation of ex officio appeal cases, the first and second court rendered a separate examination and rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant, and then the defendant filed an appeal respectively. This court decided to hold the above appeal cases together.

However, each crime of the first and second judgment against the defendant is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, each judgment of the court below against the defendant was no longer maintained in this respect.

Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings on the Violation of Acts and subordinate statutes and Article 18(2) and (3), and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that service on the defendant shall be made by public notice if the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though he/she took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, and that service on the defendant may be made by public notice only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. As such, Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by public notice if other contact numbers of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice shall be made immediately without taking such measures, and it shall not be permitted to promptly serve on the defendant by public notice and make

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). In light of the records of this case, the police over the Defendant.