The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the following facts are acknowledged according to the records.

① On August 30, 2018, the lower court served a copy of the indictment by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings on the ground that the whereabouts of the Defendant cannot be confirmed, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with labor for one year on August 30, 2018, when the Defendant was absent.

② On September 14, 2018, the Defendant alleged to the effect that he/she was unaware of the fact that a public prosecution was instituted because he/she was unable to receive a copy, etc. of the indictment while claiming the recovery of his/her right to appeal. On October 1, 2018, the lower court rendered a decision to reinstate the Defendant’s right to appeal by recognizing that the Defendant was unable to file an appeal within the period of appeal due to a cause

Comprehensively taking account of the above progress of the case and the records of the trial of this case, the defendant seems not to have been able to attend the trial of the court below for the reason that he cannot be held responsible unless there are special circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant's ground for a retrial under Article 23-2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is recognized. This falls under the ground for appeal under Article 361-5 (13) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the appellate court, which is the appellate court, should reverse the judgment below and render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243 Decided November 26, 2015, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252 Decided June 25, 2015, etc.). In this respect, the lower judgment became impossible to maintain it as it is.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal.