The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment

Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Articles 18(2) and (3) and 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service on the accused shall be made by means of service by public notice in cases where the whereabouts of the accused are not verified even though the accused took necessary measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused. In cases where the Defendant’s home phone number, mobile phone number, etc. appear in the record, prior to the determination of service by public notice

It would be in violation of the Act on Special Cases and the Enforcement Rule thereof to conclude that the location of the defendant is not confirmed without taking such measures and promptly serve the defendant by means of service by public notice and make a judgment without the defendant's statement.

In light of the records, the defendant's contact address, "AI" and "AJ" should be recognized in the indictment against the defendant. In such cases, the court below should have tried to confirm the place of service by sending the contact with the above contact address prior to the decision of service by public notice and to promptly serve the service by public notice and make a decision without the defendant's statement. The court below erred in the misapprehension of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases and Articles 18 (2) and (3), and 19 (1) of the Rules on Special Cases and the Rules on Special Cases, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of the above ex officio reversal is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing. Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.