The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

Since other contact numbers of the defendant appear on the record, it should be viewed that the attempt is made to identify the place where the defendant will receive the service by contact with the contact address and to identify the place where the defendant will receive the service by public disclosure immediately without taking such measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do662, Jul. 28, 201). According to the records, the court of original judgment attempted not only the defendant's workplace address (B) but also the defendant's home address (J, 501, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu G, 501) B (H), etc. before making a decision on service by public announcement on December 10, 2015.

In light of the above legal principles, the decision of the court below on delivery of public notice and its service based on it are unlawful, and the decision of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as it affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning litigation procedures.

3. In conclusion, the court below's judgment is reversed ex officio.