The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, where the whereabouts of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant was taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant, service on the defendant shall be made by serving public notice. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by serving public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the defendant is unknown.

Since other contact numbers of the defendant appear on the record, it should be viewed that the defendant's attempt is made to confirm the place where the service is to be made by contact with the contact address and to identify the place where the service is to be made, and it is not allowed to make a judgment without the defendant's statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). According to the records, the defendant stated his mobile phone number (K) in the investigation procedure (see, e.g., 11 right, 4 right8, 56 of the evidence record), and the court below tried to confirm the place where service is to be made by contact with the above mobile phone number of the defendant and to view it as the place where service is to be made by contact with the above mobile phone number of the defendant.

The court below's decision that the defendant's location is not confirmed without such measures is not immediately served by the method of public disclosure and decided without the defendant's statement is in violation of the special rules on the promotion, etc. of litigation and the promotion of litigation, etc., and the litigation procedure is unlawful. Thus, the court below's decision cannot be maintained further in this regard.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is correct.