The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

According to the records, the lower court served the Defendant with a copy of indictment and a writ of summons by serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion”), and proceeded with a trial without the Defendant’s statement while the Defendant was absent, and sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment on September 1, 2017.

The defendant, who was formally final and conclusive, was arrested by the execution of the punishment in accordance with the above judgment below and requested for the recovery of his right of appeal, and therefore failed to have his address moved and failed to obtain a writ of summons, and thus, was unaware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance

On November 22, 2017, this Court argued that the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and decided to recover the right of appeal against the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant alleged that there is a ground for a request for a retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Litigation Promotion Act and that there is a ground for appeal corresponding to "when there is a ground for a request for a retrial" under Article 361-5 (1) 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to the records, there is a ground

Recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is impossible to maintain as it is, and this court has deliberated newly on the procedure of trial by delivering a duplicate of indictment to the defendant, and thus, it is necessary to render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015, etc.). 3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the judgment of the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.