The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentence of the court below (the fine of KRW 3,00,000) is too unreasonable in light of the overall sentencing conditions in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal.

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 same Act provide that, when the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service by public notice shall be made in the event that the location of the defendant is not confirmed. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice may be made only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. Thus, in cases where other contact numbers of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice shall be made immediately without taking such measures, and service by public notice shall be made without identifying the place of service by public notice. Thus, in cases where other contact numbers of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do6762 Decided July 28, 2011). The record reveals the following facts.

The court below served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of trial date to the "A of the Jeonbuk-gun" as stated in the indictment as the dwelling of the defendant, but the service was impossible due to the addressee's unknown, and requested the prosecutor to correct the address.

Therefore, the prosecutor revised the address of the former EB (the address written in the indictment is changed to the road name address), which is the Defendant’s resident registration address, and entrusted the investigation of the location to the address written in the indictment. However, the defendant was not living in the actual above address, and the court below again requested the prosecutor to correct the address, and the prosecutor corrected the address to the above resident registration address.

On the other hand, however,