The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, service by public notice to the defendant can be conducted only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, and in the event that the defendant's home number or portable phone number is shown in the record, the defendant's attempt to contact with the above telephone number and to confirm the place of service, and to immediately issue a service by public notice and make a judgment without the defendant's statement is not permitted as it violates Articles 63(1) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3892 Decided July 12, 2007). B.

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

(1) On April 17, 2013, the detention warrant for the arrest of the defendant issued by the court of original judgment against the defendant was returned on May 28, 2013, when the defendant was served with a writ of summons of the defendant at the domicile of the defendant as stated in the indictment and was absent on the first, third, and fourth trial date (the mother of the defendant was served).

on July 4, 2013, the court below sent a writ of summons to the defendant's domicile as stated in the indictment, and requested the chief of the Seodaemun-gu Police Station to find the location of the defendant. On July 12, 2013, the above writ of summons became impossible to be served due to the absence of closure, and on August 12, 2013, the chief of the Seodaemun-gu Police Station submitted a reply stating that the defendant does not reside in his domicile.

Article 28(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The Defendant shall be subject to a warrant of detention for the Defendant’s defendant’s custody on August 5, 2013 and October 3, 2013,” and “the Defendant shall be subject to a warrant of detention for the Defendant’s custody” on September 11, 2013. However, the above warrant was returned to an impossible execution on March 11, 2014.

x) The original court shall have jurisdiction over March 11, 2014.