The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable as the sentence imposed by the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 18(2) and (3), and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that where it is impossible to confirm the location of the defendant by the lapse of six months after receipt of the report on the failure to serve on the defendant at the trial of the court of first instance, and where the location of the defendant is not verified even though he/she took necessary measures to identify the location of the defendant, service to the defendant by means of public disclosure.

However, according to the records of this case, the lower court: (a) even though it was intended to serve a copy of the indictment and a summons of the trial date on the Defendant’s domicile, it was impossible to serve the Defendant on March 15, 2017 due to the absence of closure; (b) the Defendant was not present on the first trial date on April 3, 2017, and thus, ordered the Defendant to serve special documents at night; (c) the Defendant’s address was served on April 14, 2017 without closure; (d) the lower court entrusted the head of the police station with the detection of the Defendant’s whereabouts on April 24, 2017; and (e) on May 22, 2017, the Defendant sent a writ of summons to the head of the police station on May 22, 2017, and sent it on May 22, 2017 to the Defendant’s address; and (e) the Defendant did not visit the Defendant’s address on the first trial date and sent the Defendant’s reply to the Defendant.