The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) that the court below sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, an attempt should be made to find a place where the Defendant is able to receive service by means of service, such as serving the documents on the actual place of residence recorded in the record prior to the decision of service by public notice, or confirming by telephone, in case where the service of documents becomes impossible, prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by public notice. It is unlawful to render a judgment without the Defendant’s statement without taking such measures.

I would like to say.

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7145 Decided February 25, 2005, etc.).

According to the records, the defendant, upon receipt of the investigation agency's investigation, stated his/her home phone number as "L" (the 2012 Go-Ma86 case No. 23, 2012 Go-Ma86 case No. 52, the evidence records No. 52 of the 2012 Go-Ma86 case), and the defendant's residence was written as "Y" (the 29th, 2012 Go-Ma53 case No. 553 case No. 54, the evidence records No. 2012 Go-Ma86 case No. 54, etc.), and the court below should have tried prior to the decision of service by public notice by public notice by public notice by concluding that the defendant's whereabouts cannot be known without the defendant's attendance by public notice by public notice by public notice. If this is confirmed, the court below cannot be deemed to have taken necessary measures in order to identify the location of the defendant, and therefore, the defendant's office and method of service by public notice by public notice cannot be known.