The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service on the defendant shall be made by means of service in case the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed even though the defendant was taken necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, and Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. Thus, in case where other dwelling, contact address, etc. of the defendant appear in the record, attempt should be made to confirm the place of service by public notice or contact with the address of the defendant, and it is not permissible to immediately serve a writ by public notice and make a judgment without the defendant's statement without taking such measures.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3892 Decided July 12, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 201Do6762 Decided July 28, 201, etc.). According to the records, the court below should have tried to deliver a writ to the above Defendant’s workplace address or wife’s cell phone number, or to confirm the place of service by communicating the Defendant’s wife’s cell phone number with the Defendant’s address or wife’s cell phone number, and Defendant’s address (H) and wife I’s mobile phone number (L), and to immediately deliver the Defendant’s service by public notice in the investigation procedure. In making a decision by public notice, the court below should have tried to deliver a writ to the Defendant’s address or wife’s address, or to confirm the place of service by sending the Defendant’s cell phone number to the Defendant’s wife or wife’s mobile phone number, but it was concluded that the Defendant’s location was not confirmed without such protocol, and immediately deliver it by public notice by public notice and without the Defendant’s statement.