The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by one year and two months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits ex officio determination, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits do not correspond to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the trial proceedings at the court of first instance, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed at the expiration of six months from the date of receipt of the report on the failure to serve on the defendant, even though the investigation was commissioned to identify his/her whereabouts, issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures, the service on the defendant shall be made by means of serving public notice, while Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by serving public notice if his/her residence, office, or whereabouts

The Act stipulates.

Therefore, in the event the Defendant’s office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, the attempt should be made to confirm and regard the place to be served with the above telephone number, and the delivery by the method of immediately serving public notice without taking such measures is not permitted as it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 201). According to the records, the court below decided to publicly notify the documents of the case against the Defendant and ordered the Defendant to appear on the date of the fifth public trial without the Defendant’s statement while the Defendant was summoned by the method of serving public notice and was not present on the date of the third and fourth public trial, and on the fifth public trial date, the court below’s decision on the date of the fifth public trial without the Defendant’s statement may be recognized as being written “the contact information of the Defendant’s cell phone number” in the evidence-related record submitted on the fourth public trial date of the court below.

In light of the above legal principles.