The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable when considering various circumstances against the defendant in light of the summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that if the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made if it is not known. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Special Rules Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the trial of the court of first instance, if the location of the defendant is not verified within six months from the date of receipt of the report on the impossibility of service by public notice even though the request for investigation of location, issuance of detention warrant, or other necessary measures were taken in order to identify the whereabouts of the defendant, service by public notice shall be made. If the defendant's home number or cell phone number appears in the record, service by public notice shall be made immediately after contact the above phone number and considering the place of service by public notice, and service by public notice shall not be permitted as it violates Article 63(1) and Article 23 of the Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 201, etc.). According to the records of this case, the court below served the Defendant’s writ of summons to the address (H205 Dong Dong-dong 1003 (I apartment) as stated in the indictment, but the service was impossible, and the Defendant’s writ of summons was served to the corrected address after ordering the prosecutor to correct the address. This also became impossible, and the court below also confirmed that the Defendant’s cell phone number as stated in the indictment was five telephones and did not receive telephone.