The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months and a fine not exceeding three hundred thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and fines for 300,000 won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the legality of the decision of the court below by public notice ex officio.

A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, when the whereabouts of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant was taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant, service by public notice shall be made in the latter case. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice shall be made only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. Thus, if other contact numbers of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice shall be conducted immediately without taking such measures, and it shall not be permitted to serve by public notice and render a judgment without the defendant's statement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). (B)

According to the records, the court below attempted to deliver a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons of the defendant, etc. to the defendant, which is the address in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and the domicile in the resident registration, "NL 108" and "Seoul Northern-guO" which is the resident registration address in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and made a decision of service by public notice.

C. However, while the prosecutor revised the address of the defendant and submitted contact numbers to P (P). However, the court below confirmed that the contact numbers were " Q", which is the contact points written in the indictment, and did not contact to "P".

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court should have attempted to communicate with the revised contact point prior to making the decision of service by public notice. However, such measures are taken.