The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

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

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

Article 19(1) of the Special Rules on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that if the location of the defendant is not confirmed by six months after the receipt of the report on the failure to serve on the defendant, the service to the defendant shall be made by public notice.

According to the records, the delivery notice stating the above reasons for non-delivery is received at this court on the 15th of the same month because the copy of the indictment and the summons of the defendant regarding the case of the court below were lawfully served on December 24, 2015, but was not served on the defendant's writ of summons as the absence of closure; the defendant's writ of summons was served on January 14, 2016, and on March 9, 2016, and the defendant's writ of summons was not served on April 6, 2016, and the delivery notice stating the above reasons for non-delivery was received at this court; the court of the court of the court of the court below decided on October 6, 2016 that the service of the defendant to the public notice of the indictment was not served on the defendant on October 6, 2016; accordingly, the defendant's writ of summons was served on the public notice of the public notice of the case; and as a result, the trial was held on March 28, 2016.

Ultimately, the lower court ordered the Defendant to serve a public notice on October 6, 2016, before the lapse of six months from April 15, 2016, when the report on the failure to serve on the Defendant was received by the lower court. In this regard, the lower court’s judgment is no longer maintained.

3. Thus, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts

this Court recognizes the substance of the evidence and the summary thereof.