The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to Article 63(1) of the ex officio determination of the Criminal Procedure Act, when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that service by public notice shall be made only when the defendant's whereabouts are not confirmed until six months have passed since the receipt of the report, although the defendant's whereabouts were taken necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, and in light of the above six-month period is the minimum period established to protect the defendant's right to trial and right to attack and defense, "when the report on impossibility of service was received" shall be strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4983, Nov. 14, 2003).

According to the records, the Defendant, upon being aware of the fact of notification of the summary order of this case by public notice, filed a request for the recovery of the right to request the formal trial on January 26, 2012 and the request for the formal trial on January 27, 2012, and followed the court’s decision on the recovery of the right to request the formal trial, and subsequently, the Defendant sent a writ of summons to the Defendant, but the lower court received a report on the impossibility of service, stating that the Defendant was not served due to unknown address on September 6, 2012, and the Defendant’s writ of summons was not served again as the addressee on September 18, 2012 after the correction of address, and the Defendant attempted to return a telephone call on October 8, 2012, but failed to notify the date of trial due to the Defendant’s failure to receive the phone, and the lower court ordered the Defendant to serve the service of the Defendant by public notice on October 8, 2012 and subsequently ordered the Defendant to appear on December 121, 201.

Therefore, it is true.