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 one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) 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 to "Ysan-si L" written in the indictment, but it was impossible to serve due to the addressee's unknown whereabouts, and the prosecutor demanded correction of address to the address stated in the above indictment, which was the Defendant's resident registration, and the prosecutor corrected it to the address stated in the above indictment, which was the Defendant's resident registration, and the defendant sent a writ of summons to the above address, but it was impossible to serve due to the failure to close the indictment and the director's unknown, but requested the investigation into the above address

On the other hand, among the investigation records of this case, the police interrogation protocol of this case is the address of the defendant, "M apartment 101, 208, the defendant."