The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of this case’s sentencing conditions, the sentence of 6 months sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before determining on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s appeal, the following facts are acknowledged according to the records of this case.

1) The lower court sent a copy of the instant indictment, Defendant’s summons, etc. to “H in Gunsan,” which was written in the instant indictment as the Defendant’s residence, but did not serve.

2) In addition, although the court of original judgment took such measures as correction of address, request for detection of the location of residence, issuance of detention warrant, request for dispatch of name, etc., it did not grasp the location of the defendant.

3) On May 25, 2017, the lower court rendered a decision ordering the service of the Defendant to be made public notice, and accordingly served the service of a copy of the indictment, the fourth public trial date ( June 22, 2017), a writ of summons, etc. by means of public notice.

4) On June 22, 2017, the lower court delayed the date when the Defendant was absent on the fourth trial date, and designated the following date as 1:30 on July 6, 2017, and served the writ of summons by means of public notice delivery. On July 6, 2017, the lower court notified the Defendant that the writ of summons should be amended without the Defendant’s appearance at the fifth trial date pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and completed the examination of evidence and closed the pleadings, and sentenced the Defendant on August 10, 2017.

B. The main text of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that “where it is impossible to confirm the whereabouts of the accused by the lapse of six months from the time a report on the failure to serve on the accused was received in the trial proceedings in the first instance, a trial may be held without the statement of the accused, as prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations.” Meanwhile, the proviso of the same Article provides that “The said proviso constitutes death penalty, imprisonment for life or for