The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (eight months without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

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

On May 4, 2016, the lower court determined that the service of the defendant to the public notice shall be made by serving the defendant on the public notice. On June 3, 2016, pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the lower court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment without labor for eight months on June 17, 2016.

After the above judgment became formally final and conclusive on September 2, 2016, the defendant filed a petition for recovery of his right to appeal to the court below on September 2, 2016, and on September 9, 2016, the court recognized that the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

According to the above facts, there is no reason to assume that the defendant was unable to attend the trial of the court and there is a reason to request a retrial.

The judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained, since the public notice service decision is revoked in the trial and the copy, etc. of the indictment is served again, and all of the trial proceedings, including the examination of evidence, are newly progress.

3. The court below's decision is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The facts constituting an offense and the summary of the evidence acknowledged by the court and the summary of the evidence are as follows: (a) in addition to the alteration of the "police interrogation protocol against the defendant to the "legal statement of the defendant" in the summary of the evidence of the court below, it is identical to the corresponding column of the court below's judgment; and (b) thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with

Application of Statutes

1. Article 171 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 171 of the choice of punishment.