Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and ten months.

The defendant against the judgment of the court below of the second instance.

2. Before determining the Defendant’s ex officio decision on the lower judgment on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, this paper examined ex officio the Defendant’s decision on the first instance judgment.

In the criminal procedure, service by public notice to the accused can be made only when the dwelling, office or present residence of the accused is unknown. Thus, in case where other contact numbers of the accused appear on the record, it should be viewed as an attempt to confirm the place of service by contact with the contact address and to regard it as the place of service. It is not permitted to serve service by public notice immediately without taking such measures and render a judgment without the statement of the accused.

(2) On July 12, 2007, the Defendant appeared at the trial date on August 13, 2016 and did not appear on the above trial date after being notified of the trial date on September 14, 2016, and the summons for the Defendant was not served on the above trial date, depending on the fact that the Defendant sent several calls to “AO” which is the Defendant’s telephone number as stated in the indictment, but did not connect with each other, the Defendant sent a service by public notice after having received confirmation of the Defendant’s location as a result of his request for detection of the Defendant’s domicile and without having made a statement. However, the lower court did not confirm the Defendant’s phone number on September 14, 2016, and the Defendant’s phone number on contact with QA as indicated in the indictment.”

Therefore, the first instance court's statement is based on illegal service by public notice.