The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court ex officio determined that the Defendant’s whereabouts cannot be confirmed even after taking measures to confirm the whereabouts of the Defendant, such as correction of address, request for detection of location, issuance of detention warrant, etc., and served a writ of summons, etc. on the method of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and sentenced the Defendant to a conviction by proceeding an examination without the Defendant’s statement while

After that, the defendant filed a request for recovery of his right of appeal on the ground that he was not aware of the fact that the judgment was pronounced by the public notice of the summons of the defendant, etc., and the court below decided to recover his right of appeal on the ground that the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the period of appeal due

As can be seen, there is a ground for review that the lower court’s judgment is stipulated in Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and that “where a defendant who was convicted of a conviction was unable to attend the trial due to the cause for which

In a case where the defendant claimed and cited the right to appeal for the reason that he could not file an appeal within the period for filing an appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant or his agent for this reason, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant alleged that there was a cause for the request for retrial, and that he asserted the reason for appeal corresponding to the “when a cause for the request for retrial exists” as prescribed in Article 361-5 subparag. 13 of

Therefore, in such a case, the appellate court should examine whether there are grounds for the request for a retrial, and there are such grounds.

If it is recognized, new litigation procedures have been conducted, such as serving a copy of indictment, etc.