The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (4 months of imprisonment).

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice may be conducted when the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown. As such, in the event the defendant’s home number or mobile phone number appears in the record, the defendant’s attempt to contact with the above telephone number to identify the place where service is to be made, and the delivery by public notice is not permitted immediately without taking such measures, as it violates Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the records, the court below did not send a copy of the concurrent decision/written indictment (2012No. 8894), the summons of the defendant, and the decision to appoint a state appointed defense counsel to the defendant on September 3, 2012, and summoned the defendant by using the defendant's cell phone number as stated in the application for postponement of the trial date on the same day (No. 2012. 8. 27. 201). After the defendant did not appear at the public trial, the above indictment was impossible to serve the defendant, and the above indictment was not summoned with the cell phone number, and the defendant was not summoned with the above cell phone number, and the court below ordered correction of address and commissioned the detection of the location of the defendant on November 6, 2012. The court below issued the arrest warrant, and the corrected address (No. 1,000, Bupyeong-gu R), the execution warrant was impossible, and the above cell phone number was not summoned with the above cell phone number, and the defendant did not appear on March 28, 2018. 2013.