The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Determination of the summary of grounds for appeal (unfair punishment for eight months) shall be inappropriate;

2. The judgment of the court below was conducted pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings while the defendant was absent, and the judgment was pronounced guilty.

The defendant filed a claim for recovery of the right to appeal on the ground that he/she could not file an appeal within the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

Although the defendant did not request a retrial in accordance with Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, it is understood that he or she argued the reasons for the request.

The judgment of the court below is a ground for request for retrial under Article 361-5 Item 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252 Decided June 25, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2016Do19387 Decided February 15, 2017, etc.).3. The lower court’s conclusion has a ground for ex officio reversal.

Pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment shall be reversed and rendered following pleadings:

Criminal facts

Criminal facts and the summary of evidence recognized by this court are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below in addition to adding "court statement of the defendant" to the summary of evidence.

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 258-2 (1) and 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The reasoning for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation was determined by the lower court by comprehensively taking account of the period of repeated crime, the circumstances leading up to the crime, and the agreement with the victim.

The court below did not err in selecting and applying sentencing factors, and there is no change in sentencing factors in the appellate court.

Although the sentencing criteria are not applied to the indictment case prior to the enforcement date of the sentencing criteria for special injury (the prosecution case after August 15, 2018) but the sentencing criteria are not applied in this court, considering the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing which are set forth in the sentencing criteria for special injury crimes, the determination of the sentence of the court below is nonexistent.