The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, public notice service for the accused may be made only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the accused is unknown. Thus, in the event the Defendant’s home phone number or mobile phone number on the record shows the phone number or mobile phone number, it should be viewed as an attempt to confirm the place to be served with the above phone number and to regard it as the place to be served. It is prohibited to serve the Defendant by means of public notice and make a judgment without the Defendant’s statement as it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the above legal principle also applies to the case where the defendant knew that the lawsuit was pending, and the defendant did not report his residence to the court, and thus no service is made thereby, the court shall serve the documents by means of public notice.

This is because the court's decision based on the above illegal disclosure service procedure is not legitimate on the ground that the defendant did not report his/her residence change even though the procedure for serving public notice was clearly unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12430, Jan. 28, 2010, etc.). According to each "written request for confirmation of departure" bound in the public trial records of this case, the defendant stated "Mag-si F, 103 Dong 1304, Jun. 28, 201," as his/her domicile. However, the court below can find the fact that the defendant did not appear in the court where he/she attempted to serve public notice to the above address or did not detect his/her domicile and made a decision without the defendant being present

Therefore, the court below, based on illegal disclosure service, proceeded with a trial without the defendant's statement, and sentenced the defendant to the trial date on which the defendant did not appear, and such.