The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of this case’s decision ex officio, the court below determined that the service of the defendant on May 19, 2017, when the duplicate, etc. of indictment is not served on the defendant, shall be made by means of serving public notice. On June 23, 2017, when the defendant did not appear in accordance with Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the court below sentenced the defendant to six months of imprisonment on September 1, 2017; the above judgment became final and conclusive as the appeal period expires; the defendant filed a claim for recovery of the right to appeal against the above judgment; and the defendant filed a claim for recovery of the right to appeal on the grounds that it is not responsible for the failure of the defendant to file an appeal within the statutory period; and therefore, it can

Therefore, there is no reason to return to the court below's failure to attend the trial and there is a reason to request a retrial under Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, etc.

Recognizing this, this Court has completed a new litigation procedure, such as serving a copy of indictment on the accused, and rendered a new judgment according to the result of a new trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015). In this respect, the judgment of the court below became impossible to maintain as it is.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the court below in other words, the summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence recognized by the court below is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for adding “the Defendant’s oral statement at the court below” to the summary of the evidence as stated in the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.