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 is too unreasonable that the punishment of the original court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial to identify the location of the defendant, if the location of the defendant was not verified by the request for investigation, issuance of a warrant of arrest, or other necessary measures, even though the report on impossibility of service of the defendant was received by public notice.

Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it is necessary to have an attempt to contact the above telephone number with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 2011). Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the court below ex officio examined the reasoning for appeal by the defendant. According to the records, the judgment below acknowledged the fact that the defendant did not communicate with the address recorded in the personal management ledger, etc., or with the telephone number recorded in the above ledger, and served the defendant through service by public notice, and the judgment of the court below is unlawful on the ground that the procedure did not meet the requirements for service by public notice. Thus, the court below erred

3. The judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for ex officio reversal.