A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

2. According to Article 63(1) of the ex officio determination of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that service by public notice shall be made only when the defendant's whereabouts are not confirmed until six months have passed since the receipt of the report, although the defendant's whereabouts were taken necessary measures to confirm the defendant's whereabouts, and in light of the above six-month period is the minimum period established to protect the defendant's right to trial and right to attack and defense, "when the report on impossible service was received" shall be strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4983, Nov. 14, 2003).

According to the records, the court below sent a writ of summons to the defendant on July 10, 2014, but sent a letter of request for the detection of location on July 28, 2014, which was not served due to an addressee's unknown whereabouts, and on August 21, 2014, ordered the prosecutor to correct his/her address, and ordered the prosecutor to serve the service of the defendant by public notice on January 12, 2015, and ordered the defendant to serve the date of trial on February 11, 2015, when the defendant did not appear.

However, the above decision of service by public notice was made on January 12, 2015, before six months elapse from July 14, 2014, by which the first report on service by public notice was received from the lower court, and was made on January 12, 2015, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of