The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, if the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though he/she took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service of the defendant shall be made by means of public notice after six months from the date on which the report on the impossibility of service was received, and Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, service of public notice shall be made only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown.

As such, in the records, where the actual dwelling place, work place, house phone number, mobile phone number, etc. of the defendant appears, an attempt shall be made to deliver them to such actual dwelling place, etc., or to identify the place to be served by contact with telephone number, etc., and to serve them by means of public notice and to make a judgment without the defendant’s statement is not allowed without taking such measures (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do662, Jul. 28, 201, etc.). According to the records, the court of original judgment attempted to communicate with the defendant’s another mobile phone number (M, N), mobile phone number (O), Defendant’s mother’s contact number, and Defendant’s workplace (P), etc. on the evidence record prior to making a decision on July 10, 2015, or attempted to serve them to the Defendant’s workplace (RResearch Institute located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government).

In light of the above legal principles, the court rendered a judgment by serving public notice by concluding that the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed without taking such measures, and without proceeding the trial proceedings without the defendant's statement. In light of the above legal principles, the court below is erroneous.