1. In a case where a judgment of conviction in the first instance becomes final and conclusive by dismissing the prosecutor’s appeal after only the prosecutor appealeds the trial of the first instance that was proceeded with without the defendant being absent pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., if the defendant was unable to attend the trial of the first instance and the appellate court without any cause attributable to the defendant and filed a final appeal by recovering the right to appeal, this constitutes “when there is a cause for re-appeal” as prescribed by Article 383 subparag.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252 Decided June 25, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1054 Decided August 27, 2015, etc.). (See, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do1752 Decided June 25, 2015).

Pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the first instance court served a writ of summons, etc. through service by public notice, and tried in a state where the defendant is absent, and sentenced the defendant for ten

When the prosecutor appealed from the grounds of unfair sentencing, the court of first instance also served a writ of summons, etc. through service by public notice, and proceeded with the examination while the defendant was absent pursuant to Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, thereby became final and conclusive formally

B. When the Defendant was aware of the fact that a public prosecution was instituted due to the failure to be served with the duplicate of the indictment, the Defendant filed a petition for recovery of the right to appeal, and the court recognized that the Defendant’s failure to file an appeal within the period of appeal was due to a cause not attributable to him/her and decided to recover the right to appeal.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the first instance court was tried pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, while the Defendant was absent due to a cause not attributable to him, and the judgment of the lower court may also be held liable for the Defendant.