The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a notice service on the Defendant may be made only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the Defendant is unknown. Thus, in a case where the Defendant’s home number or mobile phone number appears on the record, an attempt should be made to confirm the place to be served with the above phone number and to regard it as such.

In addition, without taking such measures, delivery by means of public notice and rendering a judgment without the defendant's statement is not permitted as it violates Articles 63 (1) and 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12430, Jan. 28, 2010, etc.). (b) The record reveals that ① the Defendant's telephone number in the police interrogation protocol against the Defendant is indicated as "self-tel mobile phone M"; ② the Defendant's address stated in the indictment was not served with a copy of the indictment, etc.; ② the Defendant's address was sent to the new address notified by the Defendant; ③ the lower court, stating only the above "M number" and sent a copy of the indictment to the head of the police station having jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea on the date of request for detection; ④ the Defendant's phone number was suspended from contact with the Defendant, but ④ the lower court did not contact the Defendant with the Defendant on the date on which the Defendant was sent to the Defendant at least 20 days after the date of request 14.5.