The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings ex officio before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, where the location of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant took necessary measures to confirm the location of the defendant, the service on the defendant shall be made by serving public notice. Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that service on the defendant may be made by serving public notice only when the dwelling, office, or present whereabouts of the defendant is unknown.

Therefore, if other dwelling places, contact numbers, etc. of the defendant appear on the record, an attempt should be made to send a writ of summons to such address or to confirm the place where the defendant will receive a summons by contact with his/her contact address, and it is not allowed to promptly serve a summons by means of public notice delivery and to render 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, in the interrogation protocol submitted by the victim to an investigative agency and the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the victim, the defendant's cell phone number (M) and house number (N) are written (Evidence 4, 20, 93 page). In making a decision of public notice delivery, the court below attempted to confirm contact with the above cell phone number and place where the defendant will receive a delivery by contact with the above cell phone number of the defendant and the phone number of the defendant.

The court below's decision that the defendant's location is not confirmed without such measures is contrary to the special rules on the promotion of litigation, etc. and the promotion of litigation, etc., which decided without the defendant's statement, on the ground that the service by the method of public disclosure was made immediately by concluding that the defendant's location is not confirmed.