A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

2. 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 Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though he/she took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service of the defendant shall be made by means of public notice after six months from the date on which the report on the impossibility of service was received, and Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, service of public notice shall be made only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown.

As such, in the records, where the actual dwelling place, work place, house phone number, mobile phone number, etc. of the defendant appeared, such attempt shall be made by delivering them to such actual dwelling place, etc. or confirming the place to be served by contact with telephone number, and it is not allowed to serve them by means of public notice and make a judgment without the defendant’s statement (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do662, Jul. 28, 201, etc.). According to the records, the fact that the defendant was present at the court of first instance on September 17, 2014 while he was tried at the court of first instance, and was absent from the trial date on October 24, 2014. On November 12, 2014, the court of first instance entrusted the head of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Police Station to detect the location of the defendant’s dwelling from his husband to his local residents, and the defendant is still inside his residence as his husband’s husband’s local resident.

The fact that the court of the first instance received a reply to the purport that “the Defendant was served on April 20, 2015, and the court of the first instance decided to serve a public notice to the Defendant, and thereafter, this case was served on the public notice, and on June 3, 2015, the judgment of the court below was pronounced against the Defendant.