The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The sentencing of the court below (two years of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act ex officio determination, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made. According to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, if the defendant's location is not a case falling under capital punishment, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial, a request for investigation of location, issuance of a detention warrant, or other necessary measures was taken in order to identify the location of the defendant, and if the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed within six months after the receipt of the report, service by public notice shall be made by public notice

On the other hand, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it should be viewed as an attempt to confirm the place where service is made by contact with the above telephone number, and it is not permitted to serve service by public notice immediately without taking such measures because it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094, May 13, 2011). However, according to the records, the lower court should have attempted to contact the Defendant’s home number (X, 2012 type No. 103798, No. 27), telephone number (Y, No. 57 of the investigation records), mobile phone number (Z, No. 46 of the investigation records of 2013) and cell phone number (205 of the investigation records) as recorded in the records. However, the lower court immediately concluded that the Defendant’s location was not confirmed without taking such measures.