The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

2. Ex officio determination

A. In cases where a defendant filed a petition for recovery of his/her right of appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, which was affirmed without a defendant's statement pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the defendant filed a petition for recovery of his/her right of appeal, and where such grounds include 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 a petition for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings exist. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the grounds for appeal corresponding to

Therefore, in the above case, the appellate court should examine whether there are grounds for the request for a retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and there are such grounds.

If recognized, the judgment of the first instance court should be reversed, and a new judgment should be rendered in accordance with the result of the new trial, such as serving a duplicate of indictment, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). (b) According to the records of the judgment, the following facts are recognized.

1) Pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the lower court served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons, etc. on the method of serving public notice to the Defendant, and proceeded with the trial without the Defendant’s appearance, and sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment on September 14,

2) On December 22, 2017, the Defendant submitted an application for recovery of his right of appeal to the lower court on December 27, 2017 and a petition of appeal to the lower court on December 27, 2017. On January 25, 2018, the lower court recognized that the Defendant was unable to file an appeal within the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, thereby making a decision on recovery of his right

3) The defendant is responsible for the service of a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons, etc. to the public.