The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment).

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, a notice service on the accused may be made only when the dwelling, office, or present address of the accused is unknown. Thus, in the event the Defendant’s home number or mobile phone number on the record shows the above telephone number or cell phone number, it is unlawful to make an attempt to identify the place to be served by contact with the above telephone number, and to serve the Defendant by the method of delivery immediately without going through such procedures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1210, Dec. 8, 201). According to the records, the lower court’s first and second public trial on the date on which the Defendant was absent, and served the Defendant on the date on which the second public trial was held on July 9, 2019, and then notified the Defendant’s cell phone number on July 23, 2019, and the lower court did not have contact with the Defendant at the same time after having been present on the second public trial.

Although the court below should have contacted with the above other cell phone numbers confirmed in the record and identified the location of the defendant, it is against Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by concluding that the defendant's whereabouts cannot be known without taking such measures.

As above, the procedure of trial by the court below is initiated by illegal publication service.