The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment

Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of service by public notice in cases where the whereabouts of the accused are not verified even though the accused took necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused. In cases where the Defendant’s home phone number, mobile phone number, etc. appear in the record, prior to the determination of service by public notice

It would be in violation of the Act on Special Cases and the Enforcement Rule thereof to conclude that the location of the defendant is not confirmed without taking such measures and promptly serve the defendant by means of service by public notice and make a judgment without the defendant's statement.

(2) According to the records, the defendant was investigated by the police on July 6, 2014, and actually resides in FFFman 305 in Gyeonggi-gun E, and the defendant's mobile phone number stated as "G". In such cases, the court below should have tried to deliver a writ of summons to the above residence or to confirm the place of service by communicating with the above mobile phone before making a decision by service by service by service by service by service by service by service by service by service by service by service by service, and without the defendant's statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5800, Feb. 27, 2004). The court below erred in the misapprehension of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases and Article 18 (2), (3), and Article 19 (1) of the aforementioned Rules, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion.