The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds for appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service on the defendant shall be made by means of serving public notice if the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, and service on the defendant is not confirmed. In the event that the defendant's home number or mobile phone number appears on the record, prior to the decision to serve public notice, an attempt to confirm the place where the defendant will contact and receive

It is in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Management and Regulation of the Criminal Procedure and the Enforcement Rule thereof to conclude that the location of the defendant is not confirmed without taking such measures, and promptly serve the defendant by means of public disclosure and make a judgment without making the defendant's statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5800, Feb. 27, 2004, etc.). According to the records, the fact that "I" is stated in the defendant's cell phone number using the defendant's cell phone number in the accusation report and the police interrogation protocol against the defendant and the defendant's cell phone number in the investigation report against the defendant, etc. In such a case, the court below tried to confirm the place of service by contact with the defendant's cell phone number before making a decision on public disclosure.

Despite the fact that such measures should be taken, the court below made a judgment without the defendant's statement without taking such measures. In violation of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases and Articles 18 (2) and (3) and 19 (1) of the Rules on Special Cases, the court below erred by affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.