The punishment of the accused shall be set forth in six months.

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant seems to have a drinking condition at the time of the crime of this case.

However, in light of the circumstances leading to the crime, the means and methods of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

B. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the defendant's improper argument of sentencing.

Even after taking measures to confirm the whereabouts of the accused, such as requesting the detection of location, requesting the correction of address, issuing a detention warrant, etc., the lower court served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of the accused, etc. by serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and tried without the statement of the accused while the accused was absent, and sentenced the accused guilty, and the judgment became final and conclusive formally.

After that, the defendant filed a request for recovery of his right of appeal on the ground that he was unable to receive the notice of a copy of indictment, and the court of original instance decided to recover his right of appeal on the ground that the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

As can be seen, there is a ground for retrial that the lower court prescribed in Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and that “where a defendant who was convicted of a conviction was unable to attend the trial due to a cause for which he/she cannot be held responsible” (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015).