The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (alongly unfair assertion) by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, if the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years, in the trial of the first instance, if the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed by public notice after six months have passed since the receipt of the report on impossibility of service to the defendant, even though the case falls under death penalty or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more

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 with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do1094, May 13, 201). According to the records, the lower court’s following records: (i) the Defendant’s residence as stated in the indictment on December 9, 2013 and January 2, 2014; and (ii) the Defendant’s domicile in the indictment on January 2, 2014; (iii) the Defendant’s address in fact does not exist; and (iv) the correct address is “Ma of the Chungcheongbuk-gun.”

Although a duplicate, etc. of indictment was served on January 15, 2014, the defendant was not present on the first trial date of the court below, and ② The court below served a writ of summons of the defendant on the second trial date on the above residence of the defendant, and the defendant was on the second trial date of February 5, 2014.