The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by one year and six months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The decision on the grounds for appeal by the defendant shall be considered ex officio.

According to 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, even though the defendant took necessary measures to identify the location of the defendant, the defendant is required to serve a public notice only when the defendant's location is not confirmed at the expiration of six months from the receipt of the report.

Service of public notice made before six months elapse from the date of receipt of the report is illegal.

The lower court served a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons, etc. on the Defendant, but was impossible to serve due to the Defendant’s absence, and ordered the public prosecutor’s address to be corrected on April 15, 2015 due to the Defendant’s failure to appear at the first public trial date. On April 17, 2015, the lower court commissioned the head of the Seoul Southern Northern Police Station to detect the Defendant’s location at the corrected address.

On May 22, 2015, a letter of request for detection of the location was received on May 22, 2015, stating that “The Defendant’s mother-friendly Justice was residing in the Defendant’s domicile, but the Defendant’s her mother-friendly Justice stated that “the Defendant’s her body is cut and her body is not an son, and its consciousness is ten years before the contact was cut off.”

On September 24, 2015, the lower court decided to serve public notice, served a copy of the indictment, Defendant’s summons, etc. by means of serving public notice, and, on October 21, 2015, concluded the trial proceedings without the Defendant’s statement on the grounds that the Defendant was absent on the two occasions on October 21, 2015, and sentenced the judgment on November 11, 2015.

As such, the lower court’s decision to serve a public notice before six months elapse from the receipt of the report is unlawful.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by violating the law and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion.