A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Defendant

Defendant No. 2018No1659 (Definite) did not commit each larceny indicated in the second lower judgment.

Each sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) of the original judgment of 2019No806 and 2018No1659 (indual unjust) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Where a judgment becomes final and conclusive after having been convicted of a defendant under the absence of the defendant pursuant to the main sentence of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Judgment Proceedings, if the defendant is unable to attend the trial due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may request a retrial on the conviction pursuant to Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc.

Therefore, the appellate court should examine whether there are grounds for the request for retrial under the provisions of the retrial of this case, and if it is recognized that there are such grounds, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment of the first instance court and render a new judgment in accordance with the results of the new trial after proceeding with new litigation procedures, such as serving

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243 Decided November 26, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). According to the records, the first instance court determined that the service of the defendant to the defendant on January 7, 2019, which was unable to be served on the defendant due to the unknown whereabouts of the defendant, shall be served by public notice on the defendant. On April 2, 2019, pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, investigated the evidence while the defendant was not present, and sentenced

According to the above facts, it is recognized that there is no reason attributable to the defendant in the first instance trial due to the failure of the defendant in attendance at the trial, and there is a reason for the retrial under the provisions of this case. Accordingly, the first instance judgment cannot be maintained any procedure of trial, including the examination of evidence, since the defendant revoked the decision of service by public notice in the trial and served a copy of the indictment again in the trial.