The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In a case where a statutory penalty does not constitute fraud, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years, if the whereabouts of the defendant is not verified despite measures such as correction of address, request for investigation of location, issuance of arrest warrant, etc., within six months from the date of receipt of a report on failure to serve on the defendant, the court may summon the defendant by public notice

(Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings; Articles 19(1) and 18(2) and (3) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings; and Article 19(2) and (3) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall be applied to the case where the office telephone number, portable phone number, etc. of the accused appears in the records, and the place of service shall be checked and viewed as the place of service; and service by public notice without taking such measures shall not be permitted as

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094, May 13, 2011). B.

According to the records, the court below, while the defendant's cell phone (E) and the e-mail address (F) attached to the trial records (No. 12 pages) as stated in the written indictment of this case, did not attempt to communicate with the defendant before the lapse of six months from November 15, 2013 in which the report on the defendant's non-delivery of service was received, and sentenced the defendant to summon the defendant as of February 10, 2014 through service by public notice, and proceed with the trial without the defendant's appearance and statement. Such measures by the court below are contrary to Article 63 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and thus the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.