The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule, where the location of the defendant is not verified by the lapse of six months from the time a report on the failure to serve on the defendant was received even though necessary measures were taken to identify the location of the defendant, service on the defendant may be served by public notice. However, 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 defense, service failure report, which serves as the starting point, shall be strictly interpreted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7570 Decided March 29, 2012, etc.). B.

However, according to the records of this case, upon ① being unable to serve a writ of summons, etc. on the defendant, the court below entrusted the detection of the defendant's location, and according to the report on the result of the request for detection of location received as of May 4, 2018, the defendant was found to still reside in the place of residence in the indictment, and the summons, etc. was directly received on July 1, 2018. ② However, as the defendant was not present on the fifth trial date of July 13, 2018, the court below issued a detention warrant to the defendant on July 16, 2018. When the detention warrant was returned to impossible execution due to the expiration of the term of validity, the court of original judgment was immediately ordered to serve by public notice on January 16, 2019, and the judgment of the court below was proceeded without the defendant's attendance, and the return of the executed detention warrant cannot be deemed to be "receiving the impossible report."

Therefore, the decision of the court below by public notice is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Service by Publication.