The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant and the attached Form No. 2 of the judgment No. 2 of the crime list 2 to 72.

1. The 8-month imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too large and unfair.

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal on the market, service by public notice may be made when the defendant's residence, office, or present address is unknown, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 19(1) of the Special Rules on Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that service by public notice shall be made only when the defendant's whereabouts are not confirmed at the expiration of six months from the receipt of the report, although the defendant's whereabouts are taken necessary measures to confirm the defendant's whereabouts, and 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 defend, "when the report was received" shall be interpreted strictly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4983, Nov. 14, 2003).

According to the records of this case, the court below issued a detention warrant to the defendant on April 23, 2014, when the defendant was served with a writ of summons on the date of the first trial and the fourth trial date, and on May 28, 2014, when the defendant was absent on the sixth trial date, ordered the prosecutor to correct the address of the defendant. On July 9, 2014, when the defendant was absent on the eight trial date, the defendant requested the detection of the location of the defendant. On August 20, 2014, the defendant's mother was living alone at the defendant's residence, and the defendant responded to "the defendant is living in Seoul" as the police officer in charge contact with the defendant's cell phone, and on September 28, 2014, the report on request for detection of location that the defendant is absent.