The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below as to the service by public notice and the decision that the defendant did not have any statement.

According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Decree on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years, but the location of the defendant was commissioned to investigate the location, the issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures. However, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed by the lapse of six months from the receipt of the report on impossibility of service against the

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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 2011 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094, May 13, 201). According to the records, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s domicile and telephone number (in this case, the address and telephone number of the Defendant stated by the prosecutor in the investigative agency are not timely transferred), and the Defendant’s attempt to send the registered domicile and telephone contact address and the request for detection of location was made, and followed the trial without the Defendant’

However, the Defendant.