The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In determining the facts, the Defendant had no intention of embezzlement since he believed the horses of “B, who was delegated by the victim with the right to dispose of the instant real estate shares,” and sold the instant real estate shares to H.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial to identify the location of the defendant, if the location of the defendant was not verified by the request for investigation, issuance of a warrant of arrest, or other necessary measures, even though the report on impossibility of service against the defendant was received by public notice.

Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it is necessary to have an attempt to contact the above telephone number and check the place where service is to be made, and promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094, May 13, 2011). According to the records, the lower court determined that the service of documents related to the Defendant on April 5, 2012, which was not served as the Defendant’s residence indicated in the indictment, by means of public notice, was not made on April 5, 2012, and held a trial in the absence of the Defendant’s appearance on May 11, 2012 pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings on the Third