The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The sentence of the court below (five months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that when the dwelling, office, or present position of the defendant is unknown, service of public disclosure can be made.

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 Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of public notice when the location of the accused is not confirmed even though the accused was requested to investigate the location of the accused, to issue a warrant for arrest, to correct the address, or to take other necessary measures.

Therefore, in a case where other addresses, contact numbers, etc. of the defendant appear on the record, an attempt shall be made to detect the location of the defendant and confirm the place where the defendant will be served, and it is not allowed to serve the defendant as a public notice immediately without taking such measures (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12430, Jan. 28, 2010, etc.). According to the records of this case, the fact that the contact number of E, the defendant's seat of the defendant, is entered in the police suspect examination protocol against the defendant (the page 25 pages of evidence record). In such a case, the court below tried to ask the defendant's location by communicating the above contact number before determining the service of public notice.

of the corporation.

Nevertheless, since the service by public notice is conducted without taking such measures and the judgment is rendered without the defendant's statement, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in violation of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases and Articles 18 (2) and (3) and 19 (1) of the Rules on Special Cases, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, as the above grounds for reversal ex officio.