The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment below on February 18, 2019, and on March 11, 2019, the defendant appointed a public defender for the defendant on March 12, 2019; and on March 13, 2019, each written notification of the receipt of the public defender for the public defender for the defendant on March 13, 2019. ② The defendant submitted to the court for the appointment of a public defender for the defendant on March 13, 2019, before the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal was not filed within 20 days before the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal; ③ the defendant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal; the defendant did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal; and the private defense counsel for the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal including mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on April 5, 2019 after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal (However, the private defense counsel for the above case was withdrawn through misunderstanding of legal principles.)

In the case of a necessary attorney-at-law, even if the appellate court appoints a public defender, notifies the defendant and his/her defense counsel of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial records, and the defendant revokes the appointment of a public defender, the period for submitting the grounds for appeal shall be calculated from the date on which the public defender or the defendant received the notification of the receipt of the trial records (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do10651 Decided November 22, 2018), and the grounds for appeal submitted on April 5, 2019, which was 20 days after March 13, 2019, shall be deemed to have not complied with the period, and the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal

However, ex officio, the nature of each of the crimes of this case and circumstances after the crime are not good, as shown in the holding of the court below.