The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final.

1. The sentence of the court below (two years of suspended sentence to one year) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, where the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made if the defendant's dwelling, office, or present address is unknown, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that if the defendant's location is not confirmed within six months from the date of receipt of the report on impossibility of service by public notice after requesting the investigation of location, issuance of arrest warrant, or other necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, the service by public notice shall be made if the defendant's location is not confirmed, even though the defendant had taken a death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial proceedings, the service by public notice shall be made by public notice after contact the above telephone number, and the service by public notice shall not be permitted immediately without taking such measures.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 201, etc.). However, according to the record, the Defendant’s phone number on the police interrogation protocol, etc. of the instant Defendant is indicated as “K” and “L.” As such, the lower court should have tried to confirm the place of service by communicating the Defendant with each of the aforementioned telephone numbers prior to the decision of service by public notice, but without taking such measures, immediately decided service by public notice, and immediately served the Defendant’s summons by public notice, and not serve a duplicate of the indictment.