The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the whereabouts of the accused are unknown, service by public notice may be made when the whereabouts of the accused are unknown. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service by public notice shall be made in cases where the whereabouts of the accused cannot be confirmed after six months have passed since a report on impossibility of service to the accused was received, even though the accused was not a case falling under capital punishment, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor

The court's request for the detection of location by the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the address, etc. of the defendant following the request for the detection of location is the same as the impossible report because it is possible to confirm the location of the defendant more accurately than the impossible report, since the police officer directly visited the service address and searches for residents or neighboring residents, etc. by visiting the service address.

Therefore, the receipt of a report on detection of location can be seen as the “ receipt of a report on impossibility of delivery” under Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc.

(see Supreme Court Order 2014Mo1557, Oct. 16, 2014). In addition, inasmuch as the first instance court served a writ of summons on the basis of illegal service by public notice and deliberated and judged without the attendance of the defendant two or more times, it is unlawful that it did not provide the defendant with an opportunity to attend the court, and the court of appeals may decide ex officio on the grounds that affect the judgment, even in cases where the grounds for appeal are not included in the grounds for appeal. Thus, the appellate court ought to have its own discretion.