The judgment below

The remainder, other than the rejection of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

2. According to the records of this case, the court of original judgment determined that the service of the defendant on September 16, 2020, when the copy, etc. of indictment is not served on the defendant, the service of the defendant on September 16, 2020 shall be made by means of public notice. The investigation of evidence was conducted on October 14, 2020 under Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; the court of original judgment sentenced six months to the defendant on October 30, 2020; the court of original judgment became final and conclusive as the time limit for appeal; the defendant filed a claim for recovery of the right to appeal against the above judgment; and the claim for recovery of the right to appeal is recognized

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 Promotion of Litigation, etc.

In this case, this court shall proceed with a new litigation procedure by delivering a copy of indictment to the defendant and render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252 decided June 25, 2015, etc.). Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

2) In addition, on January 27, 2021, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and four months for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (do referred to as the "Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes") at the Suwon method Board, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 4, 2021.

The crime of injury of this case and the above crime of injury of this case, for which the judgment became final and conclusive, are in the relation of single concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, taking account of equity in the case of concurrent crimes at the same time, and whether to exempt the mitigation of punishment, and determine the punishment by examining whether to exempt the mitigation of punishment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for reversal of authority. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.