The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the forgery of the resident registration certificate of this case and the mobile phone subscription application of this case of mistake of facts is based on F as stated in the indictment as accomplice, the defendant was unaware of the forgery because the resident registration certificate and the mobile phone subscription application collected by F are true, there was no conspiracy or participation by the defendant in each of the crimes of this case.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, service by public notice may be made ex officio. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Decree on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not correspond to capital punishment or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life exceeding ten years, or imprisonment with or without prison labor, in the trial of the first instance, for the purpose of ascertaining the whereabouts of the defendant, if the whereabouts of the defendant is not confirmed by public notice after six months have passed since the receipt of the report on impossibility of service to the defendant.

Therefore, if the defendant's office telephone number or mobile phone number appears on the record, it is necessary to have an attempt to contact the above telephone number with the location of service and to see the place of service, and to promptly serve by public notice without taking such measures is in violation of Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094, May 13, 2011). According to the record, the lower court attempted to communicate by telephone using the phone number when the Defendant’s phone number was entered in the suspect examination protocol of the Defendant by the prosecution against the Defendant.