The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the overall sentencing conditions in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide that, when the location of the defendant is not confirmed even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, service by public notice shall be made in the event that the location of the defendant is not confirmed. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service by public notice may be made only when the domicile, office, or present location of the defendant is unknown. Thus, in cases where other contact numbers of the defendant appear in the record, service by public notice shall be made immediately without taking such measures, and service by public notice shall be made in the manner of service and service by public notice shall not be permitted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do6762 Decided July 28, 2011). The record reveals the following facts.

The court below served a copy of the indictment and a summons of the date of trial on the indictment as stated in the indictment as the defendant's residence "Seoul Dong-dong 101, Dong-gu, Daejeon, Dong-dong 101," but it became impossible to serve the defendant's residence due to the absence of a closed door, but did not summon the defendant, but issued a writ of arrest stating the defendant's address as "Y-gu, Jeon-gu, Jeon-gu, Jeon-gu, Jeon-gu," but the above warrant of arrest was not executed due to the defendant's failure to reside at the above address, and the prosecutor demanded the prosecutor to correct his address. Accordingly, the prosecutor must correct the suspect's address along with a copy