The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

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 Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years for more than ten years in the first instance trial, if the location of the defendant is not verified by the request for investigation of location, issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures in order to verify the location of the defendant, the service on the defendant shall be made 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 and check the place of service and see it. It is not permitted to serve service by public notice immediately without taking such measures because it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

(Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094 Decided May 13, 2011

B. However, the court below did not attempt to identify the defendant's home phone number (J), workplace phone number (K) recorded in the protocol of examination prepared by a judicial police officer to display the phone number of the defendant and to identify the place where the defendant can receive the documents. The defendant's automobile insurance purchaser to the defendant did not attempt to deliver the documents to the defendant's resident registration address without having attempted to send the documents to the defendant's resident registration address even though the defendant stated "Seongsung-gu L Apartment 111 Dong 502" as of the time when the defendant reported the change of address at the trial.