The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the court below's decision was held without attendance at the trial due to a cause for which the defendant was unable to receive a duplicate of the indictment, there is a ground for request for retrial.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of this case’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the court of original judgment shall serve a copy of indictment and a writ of summons of the defendant, etc. through service by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and sentenced one year to imprisonment by conducting hearings in the absence of the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant requested the recovery of the right of appeal on March 20, 2019 against the judgment of the court below which became formally final and conclusive, and the court of original judgment recognized that the defendant was unable to appeal within the appeal period on April 30, 2019 due to reasons for which

According to the above facts, since the defendant was unable to attend the trial of the court below due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, there is a ground for requesting a retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which constitutes "when there is a ground for requesting a retrial" which is the ground for appeal under Article 3

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252 Decided June 25, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243 Decided November 26, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s judgment cannot be maintained as it is, on the ground that the service of a duplicate of indictment to the Defendant, etc., proceed with new litigation procedures, such as serving the Defendant with a copy of indictment, and re-judgments according to the result of a new trial.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

3. The Defendant’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle is with merit. Thus, the lower judgment is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following judgment is rendered through pleadings.