The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the decision of service of public notice by the court below.

A. 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 same Act provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of service on public notice if the whereabouts of the accused is not confirmed even though the accused took necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused, and that service on the accused may be made only when the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the accused cannot be identified.

As the other contact details 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 Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). (b) According to the records of this case, the police interrogation protocol (Evidence 1:36 page of evidence record) and the writ of summons of the defendant (Evidence 3) on the defendant's address are stated in this case, and the defendant was served with a duplicate of the indictment and a writ of summons of the defendant (the summons of the defendant sent on April 20, 2015) at the above address.

The above address refers to the defendant's solid mother D, etc., and the investigation report (Evidence No. 4, 29 of the evidence record) can recognize the facts described in the "E" as contact address of D.

(c)

In light of the above legal principles, the lower court against the police authority having jurisdiction over the above domicile in order to grasp the location of the Defendant prior to making a decision on public disclosure service.