The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if 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 the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 18 and Article 19 of the Special Rule on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings does not apply to death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor exceeding ten years for more than ten years in the first instance trial, if the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed at the expiration of six months after receipt of the report on the impossibility of service of the defendant, the service of the defendant shall be made by public notice.

According to the records, the Defendant, upon receiving an investigation from an investigative agency, stated a mobile phone number as J., and the lower court should have tried to contact the aforementioned mobile phone number prior to making a decision by public notice and identify the whereabouts of the Defendant, but it is concluded that the whereabouts of the Defendant cannot be known without taking such measures, and the lower court determined that the Defendant’s decision by public notice was made by serving the Defendant in a way of service and serving the Defendant’s summons, etc. on the part of service by public notice and served the Defendant’

If the facts are the same, the court below cannot be deemed to have taken necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, and thus, the case cannot be deemed to constitute "when the dwelling, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown" as the requirement of service by public notice.

Therefore, the court below served the defendant with a ruling to resume the pleadings and a writ of summons by service by public notice, following the defendant.