The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant could not attend the trial of the court below due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, it constitutes a case where there is a reason for the re-examination of the court below.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. First of all, we examine the defendant's argument that there are grounds for request for retrial.

A. In a case where a judgment of conviction becomes final and conclusive after the defendant was absent pursuant to the main sentence of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Provisions”), if the defendant is 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 Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Provisions”).

However, with respect 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 for filing an 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 grounds for appeal corresponding to "when a cause for requesting a retrial exists" as prescribed in Article 361-5 subparagraph 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act is asserted by the provisions of this case.

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

If it is recognized, the judgment of the first instance court should be reversed, and the new decision should be rendered according to the results of the new trial after the new proceedings are followed, such as serving a duplicate of indictment, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 26 November 26, 2015).