The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In cases where the service of documents becomes impossible, it shall be deemed that the defendant tried to find a place where the defendant can receive service, such as serving documents on the actual place of residence recorded in the record prior to the decision of service by public notice, or confirming by telephone, etc., and it is unlawful to render a judgment without the defendant's statement without taking such measures.

(2) According to the records, the defendant's address was written in G in the indictment by means of contact with the defendant, and the court below attempted to contact with the above phone number before making a decision of service by public notice, but the defendant's contact address was cut off, and H (No. 6 of investigation records), I (Investigation records No. 10 of investigation records), and J (Investigation records No. 38 of investigation records) respectively. Thus, the court below should have taken measures to identify the location of the defendant, such as confirming contact with each of the above telephone numbers before making the decision of service by public notice. However, the court below concluded that the defendant's whereabouts cannot be known without taking such measures, and the decision of service by public notice was served by public notice by public notice, and the defendant's summons was sent by public notice without his attendance.

Therefore, since the court below cannot be deemed to have taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant, this case does not constitute "when the dwelling, office or present address of the defendant is unknown", which is the requirement for service by public notice, and the court below's proceeding without the defendant's statement after serving the writ of summons by public notice, constitutes a case where the defendant did not have an opportunity to attend without justifiable grounds.