To be sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of No. 1 and No. 3 through 9 of the judgment of the defendant.

2. In a case where the service of documents becomes impossible ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, an attempt should be made to find a place where a defendant is able to receive service, such as serving documents at the actual place of residence recorded in the record prior to the decision of service by public notice, or confirming by telephone, etc., and it is unlawful to render a judgment after serving documents by public notice without taking such measures.

However, according to the records, the court below concluded that the defendant's cell phone number of the defendant as stated in the indictment is contacted only AD with other numbers, and that the defendant's whereabouts cannot be known, and the defendant's summons was served by service by public notice. If facts are identical, the court below cannot be deemed to have taken necessary measures to confirm the defendant's whereabouts, and thus, it cannot be deemed that "when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown," which is the requirement of service by public notice, constitutes "when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown," and therefore, the court below's decision to proceed with the trial without the defendant's statement without any justifiable reason, since the court below's failure to provide the defendant with an opportunity to attend the court by public notice, constitutes "where the defendant's dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown."

I would like to say.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of ex officio reversal is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.