The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unable to attend the trial of the lower court due to a cause not attributable to him. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable for requesting a retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion”).

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on grounds for request for retrial

A. In a case where the accused of the relevant legal doctrine was found guilty due to his/her absence pursuant to the main sentence of Article 23 of the Litigation Promotion Act (hereinafter “Special Provisions”), if the accused was unable to attend a trial due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may request a retrial for conviction pursuant to Article 23-2(1) of the Litigation Promotion Act (hereinafter “Special Provisions”).

However, as to the judgment of the first instance, which became final and conclusive upon conviction without a defendant's statement pursuant to the special provisions of this case, where the defendant filed a petition for recovery of appeal on the grounds that the defendant or his/her representative could not file an appeal within the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and where such cause includes circumstances in which the defendant could not be present in the trial due to a cause not attributable to him/her, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant asserted that there was a cause for the request for retrial pursuant to the provisions of this case, and that the ground for appeal corresponding to "when a cause for the request for retrial exists" under Article 361-5 subparagraph 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act is asserted.

Therefore, in the case above, the appellate court should examine whether the grounds for the request for retrial under the provisions of the retrial of this case exist, and there are such grounds.

If it is recognized, the judgment of the first instance court is reversed and new.