The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Judgment Proceedings; Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, when the location of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant took necessary measures to identify the location of the defendant, service on the defendant shall be made by means of serving public notice. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by serving public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown.

As the other contact details of the defendant appear on the record, it should be viewed that there is an attempt to identify the place where the defendant will contact and receive the service by contact with the contact address, and it is not allowed to serve the service by the method of public notice immediately and to render a judgment without the defendant's statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do662, Jul. 28, 201). According to the records, the defendant prepared and submitted a written statement to the prosecutor in relation to the instant case on June 22, 2016, and entered his address as "B-dong G building B 1107 in the original city." The court below tried to deliver a writ to the above address of the defendant in the decision of service of public notice or to commission the detection of the location.

the defendant's location is not confirmed without taking such measures.

decently, the service by the method of public notice was made and the judgment was made without the defendant's statement.

Such a measure of the lower court is unlawful because it violates the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the special rules on the promotion of legal proceedings.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as seen above.