The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (fine 3,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. 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 Articles 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18 and 19 of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years in the first instance trial to identify the location of the defendant, if the location of the defendant was not verified by the request for investigation, issuance of a warrant of arrest, or other necessary measures, even though the report on impossibility of service of the defendant was received by public notice.

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 and check the place where service is to be made, and 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, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 201, etc.). According to the records, the court below served the Defendant’s writ of summons on the indictment as “Cheongju-si, substantial C, and 204,” which was written in the Defendant’s residence, but was not served due to the absence of a closed door door,” and the court below’s senior clerk called the Defendant’s cell phone number (D) as stated in the indictment on August 10, 201, but did not receive a telephone at the time, the Defendant did not receive a telephone, but the Defendant confirmed the list of absence of telephone and lent a phone (E) to the court below. However, the senior clerk of the court below used the Defendant’s telephone at the place of the Defendant.