According to the records, the defendant appeared at the first trial date ( July 23, 2020) of the court below, and the court of original judgment after closing his pleading on the above trial date designated and notified the second trial date as September 7, 2020, which was the second trial date, and the defendant was not present on the trial date, and sentenced the judgment by notifying the defendant that he would revise the law without his attendance pursuant to Article 277 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The lower court’s measure is lawful as it is in accordance with Article 370 and Article 277 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years has been pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below had influenced

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the court below's decision on the selection of evidence and probative value or its factual basis is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.