A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Nos. 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19.

A. Under Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the lower court, following procedural violations, served a copy of indictment and a writ of summons by serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and served a trial in the absence of the Defendant. In so doing, there is no reason to prove that the Defendant was unable to attend the trial of the lower court, and there is a reason to re

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (6 months of imprisonment, and the return of the victim) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the record of determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial due to breach of procedure, the court of original judgment served a copy of indictment and a writ of summons by means of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. and served a trial in the absence of the defendant, and sentenced six months to imprisonment by conducting the trial in the absence of the defendant. After which the defendant requested the recovery of the right of appeal against the judgment of the court below which became formally final

The court of original judgment can find out the fact that the defendant has made a decision to recover his right of appeal.

Thus, the defendant's failure to attend the trial of the court below is recognized as the grounds for the request for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings due to the lack of any reason attributable to the defendant, and this court shall proceed with new litigation procedures and render a new judgment according to the results of new hearings, such as serving a duplicate of indictment on the defendant (see Supreme Court Decisions 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015; 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. According to the conclusion, an appeal following the Defendant’s violation of the procedures for a criminal defendant is reasonable. Thus, without examining the Defendant’s unfair argument of sentencing, the appeal is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following judgment is rendered through pleading.

【Re-use.】