The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (one million won of a fine) is too 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, mobile 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, upon submitting a request for formal trial on October 31, 2012, the Defendant stated “YYYF” as his domicile, “G” as his/her cell phone number, and “G” as his/her cell phone number. The lower court served the summons of the first trial date as “YYYYHH 102, but was not served due to the addressee’s unknown address.” The Defendant’s large-scale I cell phone number recorded in the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant was called, but was not connected to the Defendant. The lower court demanded that the prosecutor correct the Defendant’s address. The prosecutor submitted the Defendant’s address as the Defendant’s corrected address, and the lower court sent a writ of summons to the above corrected address, but was not served as the addressee, and was not connected with the Defendant, but was summoned by public notice on January 1, 2013.