The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is deemed too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, service by public notice may be conducted when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown. If the address, telephone number, or portable phone number, etc. presumed to be the dwelling of the defendant appears in the record, an attempt should be made to deliver it to the above address or to confirm the place of service by contact with the above telephone number, and immediately render a judgment without the defendant's statement is not permitted as it violates Article 63 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the records, while instituting a public prosecution against the defendant on September 25, 2012, the prosecutor found the defendant's address in the indictment as "Y, Yeonsu-gu D, 403" and mobile phone numbers as "E". After that, the court of original judgment was unable to serve the documents, such as a writ of summons of the court on the defendant's trial date, to the address of the above indictment but for reasons such as non-defluence, etc., the court of original judgment ordered the defendant to serve the documents by public notice on May 28, 2013. After that, on the ground that the defendant was absent from summons by public notice on two or more occasions, the court of original judgment was revised without the attendance of the defendant on June 27, 2013, and convicted the defendant by public notice, but the court of original judgment did not contact the defendant's cell phone numbers prior to service by public notice with the above cell phone numbers of the defendant as stated in the indictment.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court attempted to contact the Defendant’s cell phone number stated in the indictment to “E” and check the place of service.