A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant, a mentally and physically weak, was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the instant case’s determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant appears to have served alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, in light of the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The defendant's mental and physical weak argument is rejected.

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 correction of address, requesting the detection of location, issuing a detention warrant, etc., the court below served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of the accused, etc. through the public notice service 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 accused cannot be confirmed, and sentenced the accused to a conviction by conducting a trial without the statement of the accused

After that, the defendant filed a petition for recovery of his right of appeal on the ground that he was not aware of the progress of trial due to being served with a duplicate of indictment, etc., and the court of original judgment rendered a decision to recover his right of appeal on the ground that the defendant could not appeal within the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him

As can be seen, there is a ground for retrial that the lower court’s judgment is “where a person who has been convicted and cannot attend the trial due to a cause for which the final judgment cannot be held liable” under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1725 Decided June 25, 2015).