The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, service by public notice may be made if it is difficult to identify the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Special Rules Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that in the trial of the first instance, if the location of the defendant is not verified by public notice even though he/she was requested to investigate the location, issued a warrant of arrest, or taken other necessary measures in order to identify the location of the defendant, even though he/she received a report on the impossibility of service to

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 with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to 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.

(1) According to the records, the court below did not serve the documents related to the lawsuit, including a copy of the indictment, at night, on several occasions at the address as stated in the indictment, but did not serve the documents due to “definite absence” and “irrefinite: any other”. Although the prosecutor demanded the correction of the Defendant’s address, the Defendant’s request for the correction of his/her address was made, the Defendant’s request for the detection of his/her whereabouts on July 10, 2014 was made, and the Defendant’s request for contact was made on September 15, 2014, but failed to verify the location of the Defendant, even though the Defendant attempted to contact with E, a telephone number of the Defendant on September 15, 2014.