A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

A. According to 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, when the location of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service to the defendant shall be made by means of public notice, and then service to the defendant shall be made at the time when the defendant's location is not confirmed until six months have passed from the receipt of the report.

On the other hand, if the first instance procedure, which was proceeded with while the defendant was not present at the court on the trial date due to the illegality of summons by public notice, is illegal, and the subsequent judgment of the court of first instance should be reversed, the appellate court as an appellate court shall render a new procedural procedure through legitimate procedure, and then render a new judgment based on the results of the trial

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do986, Apr. 26, 2012). (B)

However, according to the records, the following facts are recognized:

1) A copy of the indictment against the Defendant and the writ of summons of the first trial date were served to E on the indictment, and the Defendant also appeared and appears at the above address on the first trial date. The Defendant did not appear from October 8, 2014. 2) Accordingly, the court below issued a detention warrant to the Defendant, but returned to impossible execution. The chief of the smuggling Police Station having jurisdiction over the above address requested the Defendant to find the location of the Defendant’s whereabouts on February 6, 2015, and notified the Defendant’s cell phone (F) trial date.