The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant asserts that the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding that the defendant acquired financial benefits from the victim as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below and thereby acquired financial benefits from the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, although he had not acquired financial benefits from the victim as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below, by deceiving

B. The Defendant asserts that the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) As to fraud in the holding of the lower judgment, the lower court deemed that it constitutes “when the dwelling, office, or present address of the Defendant is unknown” and committed unlawful acts of serving the Defendant by means of service, and without the Defendant’s statement, on the grounds that it constitutes “when the dwelling, office, or present address of the Defendant is unknown.”

Even though it is difficult to see that the defendant acquired economic benefits equivalent to the above amount, the lower court determined that the defendant acquired economic benefits equivalent to the above amount by having the victim settle 68 million won by credit card.

C. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act ex officio determination 1, service by public notice to the defendant can be made only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant cannot be known in the criminal proceedings, and the defendant's office telephone number on record.