The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

On October 15, 2016, the lower court determined that the service of the defendant to the public is made by means of serving public notice. On December 8, 2016, the lower court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with labor for ten months on January 12, 2017, when the defendant did not appear in accordance with 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.

After the above judgment became formally final and conclusive on February 9, 2017, the defendant filed a petition for recovery of his right to appeal to the lower court on February 16, 2017, and on February 16, 2017, 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 identical to the facts in the judgment below, except for the alteration of the "police interrogation protocol against the defendant" and the "police interrogation protocol against the defendant" into the "written statement of the defendant" in the summary of the evidence of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1..