The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. The sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment

Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of service by public notice in cases where the whereabouts of the accused are not verified even though the accused took necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused. In cases where the Defendant’s home phone number, mobile phone number, etc. appear in the record, prior to the determination of service by public notice

It would be in violation of the Act on Special Cases and the Enforcement Rule thereof to conclude that the location of the defendant is not confirmed without taking such measures and promptly serve the defendant by means of service by public notice and make a judgment without the defendant's statement.

According to the records, the defendant's mobile phone number is "I". However, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant's mobile phone number was "J", which is different from the above number for the summons of the defendant after the first trial date, and that the defendant's mobile phone number was "J" while he requested the detection of the defendant's location. Thus, the court below did not make an attempt to contact the defendant's mobile phone number with the actual defendant's mobile phone number and to confirm the place of service and make a decision without the defendant's statement and without the defendant's statement. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases and Articles 18 (2) and (3) and 19 (1) of the above Rules, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the court below's decision is justified for ex officio reversal.