The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence of one and a half years of imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio determination.

A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc.”) and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that in a case where the location of the accused is not confirmed even though the whereabouts of the accused were taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused, service on the accused shall be made by public notice. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the accused may be made by public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present location of the accused is unknown. Thus, in a case where other contact points of the accused appear in the record, service by public notice shall be made immediately without taking such measures, and service by public notice shall not be permitted without the accused’s statement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do6762 Decided July 28, 2011). B.

According to the records of this case, ① the Defendant was served with a duplicate of indictment on January 3, 2018, but all of the subsequent days were absent on the date of trial notified thereafter, ② the court of the original judgment issued a detention warrant to the Defendant as of May 28, 2018, but became impossible to execute the warrant; ③ the court of the original judgment requested the detection of the Defendant’s location on January 17, 2019; (4) the court of the original judgment sent a phone call from the Defendant’s cell phone number “K” on March 20, 2019, and (5) the court of the original judgment ordered the service of the Defendant by public notice on March 26, 2019.