The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (one hundred months of imprisonment, the additional collection of 7,500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, if the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, service by public notice shall be made only when the location of the defendant is not confirmed by the lapse of six months from the receipt of the report on the failure to serve by public notice despite taking necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the defendant. In light of the fact that the above six-month period is the minimum period established to protect the defendant's right to trial and right to attack and defense, "when the report on failure to serve is received" shall be interpreted strictly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4983, Nov. 14, 2003).

According to the records, the court below sent a writ of summons to the defendant on September 17, 2012, but received a report on the impossibility of serving the defendant on September 20, 2012 that the defendant was not served due to the addressee's unknown whereabouts, and thereafter, the court below served the defendant on March 19, 2013, a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons, etc., and served the defendant on the defendant on the date of trial without his/her presence, and then sentenced the judgment on May 9, 2013.

According to the above facts, the service by public notice is clearly apparent that the first report was made before the lapse of six months from September 20, 2012, which was received from the original court.