The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and is in depth against the Defendant; and (b) the gist of the grounds for appeal is deemed unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the legality of the decision of service of public notice by the court below.

Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2), 18(3), and 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of serving public notice when the location of the accused is not verified even though the accused has taken necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused, and that service on the accused may be made by public notice only when the dwelling, office, and present whereabouts of the accused are unknown.

Since other contact details of the defendant appear on the record, it should be viewed that the attempt is made to identify the place where the defendant will be served by contact with the contact address and to regard the place where the defendant will be served, and it is not allowed to promptly serve the defendant by means of public disclosure and make a judgment without the defendant's statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do3892, Jul. 12, 2007; 201Do6762, Jul. 28, 2011). According to the records of this case, the defendant's written indictment and the suspect interrogation protocol of the police and the prosecutor's office against the defendant are written as "M" as the defendant's cell phone in each interrogation protocol of the police and the prosecutor's office against the defendant, and the defendant's dwelling address in the above police interrogation protocol can be acknowledged that the defendant's workplace is the same as that of the above dwelling.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below should have tried to have telephone conversations with the aforementioned cell phone prior to making a decision on public notice delivery, or have taken necessary measures, such as requesting the head of the police station having jurisdiction over the above residential area and workplace address to detect the location of the defendant. However, the court below should have taken necessary measures.