A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Before determining the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, the following facts are acknowledged according to the records.

① On May 15, 2019, the lower court served a copy, etc. of the indictment by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings on the ground that the whereabouts of the Defendant cannot be confirmed, and sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment, while the Defendant was absent.

② The Defendant alleged to the effect that he was unaware of the fact that the public prosecution was instituted because he was unable to receive a copy of the indictment, etc. while filing a petition for recovery of the right to appeal, and the court recognized that the Defendant was unable to file an appeal within the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant

Comprehensively taking account of the above progress of the case and the records of the trial of this case, the defendant seems not to have been able to attend the trial of the court below for the reason that he cannot be held responsible unless there are special circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant's ground for a retrial under Article 23-2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is recognized, which constitutes grounds for appeal under Article 361-5 subparagraph 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, the appellate court, which is the appellate court, should reverse the judgment below and render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). In this respect, the lower judgment became impossible to maintain as it is.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

In other words,