A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A. The Defendant, together with other co-defendants, was prosecuted as the facts charged of fraud (Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan5015), and the Defendant could not grasp the location of the Defendant without being served with a duplicate of indictment, etc., and the lower court served the Defendant with a copy of indictment and a writ of summons, etc. by means of service by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and conducted hearings in the state of his/her absence, and sentenced the Defendant on August 27, 2014.

B. The prosecutor appealed the lower judgment against the Defendant on the ground of unreasonable sentencing, and served a writ of summons, etc. to the Defendant by means of service prior to the remanding of the case by public notice, and tried to examine the Defendant in the absence of the Defendant under Article 365 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and sentenced the prosecutor’s appeal dismissed on August 27, 2015.

C. Around April 2019, the Defendant: (a) filed a petition for recovery of the right of appeal (2019 early 1202) on the grounds that “the Defendant was unable to be served with the indictment, etc.”; and (b) subsequently, the final appeal that was proceeded with on May 30, 2019 was reversed the judgment prior to the remand on the ground that “the judgment prior to the remand has a ground for the request for retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings” and remanded it to the competent court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with labor for up to eight months) of the lower court against the Defendant is deemed unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

A. Pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Provisions”), only the prosecutor appealed against the first instance trial proceeding with the Defendant’s absence, and the appellate court also dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal after the Defendant’s absence was tried.