The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, if the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the defendant is unknown, public notice may be served. Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor, in the trial of the first instance, for the purpose of ascertaining the whereabouts of the defendant, even though the investigation of location is commissioned, the arrest warrant issued, or other necessary measures were taken, and if the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed within six months from the receipt of the report, the service on the defendant shall be served by public notice.

Therefore, in the event the Defendant’s home number or mobile phone number appears on the record, the attempt should be made to confirm and regard the place to be served with the above phone number, and the delivery by the method of public disclosure immediately without taking such measures is not permitted as it violates 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 Decision 201Do1094, May 13, 201). (b) According to the record, the lower court served the Defendant’s residence, which is the Defendant’s residence as stated in the written indictment, but the delivery of a duplicate of the indictment was impossible due to the absence of the closed text and the unknown director, and the lower court entrusted the Defendant with detection of the location of the Defendant on October 14, 2014 and on October 15, 2014 as the result of the Defendant’s detection of his/her residence.