All the judgment of the court below (excluding the part of the compensation order among the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each of the punishments of the judgment below (one year of imprisonment with prison labor of the judgment of the court of first instance and six months of imprisonment with prison labor of the court of second instance) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the record, the Defendant was unable to attend the trial proceedings concerning the first instance judgment (hereinafter “the lower judgment” in this paragraph) due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, he may request a retrial pursuant to Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, this court shall reverse the judgment of the court below and render a new judgment in accordance with the result of the trial in this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015). Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

(1) The original court served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of the defendant by means of public notification pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and sentenced the defendant to one year after he/she has been absent for the trial.

(2) The defendant was unable to be served with a duplicate, etc. of indictment and was unaware of the fact that judgment was pronounced.

The claim for recovery of the right of appeal was filed.

(3) The original court recognized that the defendant was unable to appeal within the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to him/her and decided to recover his/her right to appeal.

B. Meanwhile, as each of the judgments of the lower court appealed by the Defendant, the crime of the first instance judgment against the Defendant and the crime of the second instance judgment against the Defendant became concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In such cases, in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Code, one punishment should be sentenced simultaneously, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is correct.