The judgment of the court below is reversed.

No. 2-A of the judgment of the defendant

8 months shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for all other crimes except for crimes.

1. The sentence of the court below against the defendant in the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and his/her counsel, Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that, in cases where the defendant's residence, office, or present address cannot be known, service by public notice may be made. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Special Rules on Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not apply to death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for an indefinite term exceeding ten years in the trial of the court of first instance, the defendant's request for investigation, issuance of detention warrant, request for correction of address of the prosecutor, and other necessary measures were taken in order to confirm the defendant's whereabouts, if the defendant's whereabouts are not confirmed within six months after receipt of the report

Therefore, if the defendant's dwelling, office or present address appears on the record, the service shall be made in the way of the service, and the service by public notice shall be made immediately without taking such measures, without taking such measures, in violation of Article 63 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, it is not permitted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 2011, etc.). However, according to the records of this case, the Defendant, at the time of investigation by the police, can recognize the fact that he stated his domicile as “Seoul Songpa-gu T” (Evidence No. 61). Thus, the lower court should have tried to send a document to the above address prior to the decision of service by public notice, but the lower court immediately concluded that the Defendant’s location was not confirmed without taking such measures and immediately concluded that the Defendant’s location was not confirmed.