The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

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

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s punishment (six months’ imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the dwelling, office, or present address of the 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 Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to capital punishment, imprisonment, or imprisonment without prison labor exceeding ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor, in the first instance trial, for the purpose of confirming the location of the defendant, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed after six months have passed since a report on the impossibility of service against the defendant was received, service by public notice after

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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094, May 13, 2011). B.

According to the records, the court below served a copy of the indictment on the defendant with "F 105 Silung-si" as stated in the defendant's domicile in the indictment, but it was impossible to serve the defendant due to the absence of closure three times. The court below attempted telephone conversations to G, which is the defendant's cell phone number stated in the indictment on May 7, 2012, but the defendant was not the defendant himself. However, the defendant's cell phone number is H, unlike the written indictment, and the defendant was the defendant in this case.