The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a service by public notice may be made only when the dwelling, office, or present address of a defendant is unknown. Thus, in a case where other contact numbers, etc. of a defendant appear on the records, an attempt should be made to confirm the place of service by contact with the contact address and to regard the place of service by public notice should be made, and it is not permitted to immediately serve service by public notice and make a judgment without a

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892 Decided July 12, 2007, and 201Do6762 Decided July 28, 201, etc.). According to the records, although the Defendant’s contact address is indicated in the police interrogation protocol of the Defendant’s police officer, the Defendant’s contact address is indicated as “self-tel telephone: C, “workplace telephone: D,” and “portable telephone: E” (Article 1 of the Investigation Records No. 20), the lower court, without contact with the Defendant’s contact address, requested the detection of the Defendant’s address as “F in Gyeyang-gu, B” which is the Defendant’s resident registration address, and the Defendant’s cell phone number was summoned only to the Defendant’s cell phone number and thus the Defendant’s location was unknown, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant decided to serve the Defendant by publication immediately.

According to the above facts of recognition, the court below concluded that the defendant's dwelling, office, or present address cannot be known without making an attempt to contact the defendant with another telephone number indicated in the record and find the defendant's delivery address, and promptly serve the defendant by means of service by public notice. Thus, the court below's decision by public notice was unlawful because it did not meet the above requirements, and the court below's decision by public notice was unlawful because it was made without the defendant's statement because it did not meet the above requirements, and it was in violation of the law of litigation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below is correct.