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.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

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

According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made, and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 18 and Article 19 of the Special Rules Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service by public notice shall be made when the location of a defendant is not confirmed at the time of receipt of a report on impossibility of service by public notice, even though the defendant was not a case falling under death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor exceeding ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor in the first instance trial.

Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it is necessary to have an attempt to contact the above telephone number with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 2011). Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the court below ex officio examined the defendant's grounds for appeal. According to the records, it is found that the court below did not commission the defendant to detect the address, etc. stated in the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the defendant's name cards, etc., and served the defendant by means of service by public notice, and the judgment of the court below is unlawful on the ground that this did not meet the requirements for service by public notice. Thus

In conclusion, the court below's decision is unfair on the ground of the above reasons.