A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

According to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the same rule, where it is impossible to confirm the location of the accused despite measures such as requesting the investigation of materials, etc. even though six months have passed since the date of receipt of the report on the failure of service to the accused in the trial proceedings of the first instance, the service to the accused shall be made by means of service by public notice, and when the accused fails to appear after being summoned at least twice by public notice,

Therefore, in order to judge without the defendant's statement in accordance with the above provision, it is required that the defendant lawfully received summons from the court date through service by public notice at least twice.

According to the records in this case, as the defendant continued to be absent on the date of trial after receiving a writ of summons by mail (the family of the defendant). The court below entrusted the investigation on his/her residence on June 21, 2012 and sent a reply that the defendant does not reside in his/her residence, and ordered the defendant to serve a writ of summons by public notice on January 24, 2013. On February 13, 2013, the court below issued an order to serve a writ of summons to the defendant by public notice on February 15, 2013 and then sent the order to change the date of trial by public notice to February 19, 2013. However, although the above order to change the date of trial was served on February 19, 2013, the court below delayed pleadings on the premise that the defendant was lawfully summoned by public notice on February 15, 2013 on the date of trial on February 7, 2013, and summoned the defendant by public notice on February 38, 2013.