The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

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 service by public notice shall be made in cases where the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice shall be made only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. Thus, in cases where other addresses, contact address, etc. of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice shall be made by detecting the location of the defendant at the address or contact, and service by public notice shall not be permitted immediately without taking such measures.

(2) In light of the records, the court below served a copy of the indictment on July 12, 2007 and January 28, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 2009Do12430, Jan. 28, 2010). The court below issued a writ of summons by public notice on September 25, 2012, which was the following day when the defendant was unable to reside in the above residence and issued a writ of summons by public notice on September 24, 2012, which was the address as stated in the indictment. The court below subsequently served a copy of the indictment to the defendant on September 25, 2012, as the corrected address was served on the Cheongju-gu J and 203 (K) but the director was not known.