The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) shall be excessively unreasonable.

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, if the dwelling, office, or present address of the 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, and Article 19(1) of the Special Rules on Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that service by public notice shall be made only when the defendant's whereabouts are not confirmed until six months have passed since the defendant's report on the failure to serve on the defendant was received, although the defendant was taken necessary measures to confirm his/her whereabouts. In light of the fact that the above six-month period is the minimum period established to protect the defendant's right to trial and right to attack and defend, "when the report on failure to serve was received" shall be strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4983, Nov. 14, 2003).

According to the records, the court below sent a writ of summons to the defendant on March 4, 2014, but ordered the prosecutor to correct the address on March 26, 2014 because the service of the defendant was not made due to his/her unknown whereabouts on March 5, 2014, and sent a letter of request for the detection of location and a writ of summons to the prosecutor on March 26, 2014 again. However, on March 28, 2014, the court below ordered the defendant to serve the service of the defendant by public notice on September 1, 2014, and ordered the defendant to serve the date of trial on November 4, 2014 without his/her presence.

The above decision of service by public notice was made on September 1, 2014, before six months elapse from March 5, 2014 received from the original court.