The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 18 and Article 19 of the Special Rules Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service by public notice shall be made when the location of a defendant is not confirmed at the time of receipt of a report on impossibility of service by public notice, even though the defendant was not a case falling under death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor in the first instance trial.

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). Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the court below ex officio examined the reasoning for appeal by the defendant. According to the records, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant did not request the location detection of the address indicated in the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendant and served the defendant by service by public notice, and the judgment of the court below is unlawful on the ground that this does not meet the requirements for service by public notice. Thus, the court below erred in

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for reversal of authority.