The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five months.

1. The sentence (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

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

On September 2, 2016, the lower court determined that the service of the defendant to the public notice should be made, and on October 14, 2016, under 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 six months imprisonment on October 26, 2016, where the defendant did not appear.

When the Defendant was arrested for the purpose of executing a sentence in accordance with the lower judgment, on November 15, 2016, the Defendant applied for recovery of the right to appeal, and on November 22, 2016, the court recognized that the Defendant was unable to appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, and rendered a decision to recover the right to appeal.

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.

Accordingly, 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 the trial proceedings, including the examination of evidence, are newly progress.

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

[Grounds for a new judgment] Criminal facts and the summary of evidence recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below, except where the court below's order to dismiss the defendant's prosecutor's interrogation protocol "1. The defendant's prosecutor's interrogation protocol" against the defendant "1. The defendant's prosecutor's prosecutor's interrogation protocol" as stated in the corresponding column of the court below's judgment. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;