All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

1. The gist of the appeal is heavier than the original sentence.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The reasoning for ex officio reversal following the consolidation of judgment Nos. 1 and 2 was examined together with the judgment of the court below, and each of the crimes of the first and second judgments with respect to the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is related to the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and one sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the

B. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of this case, which are ex officio as to the judgment of the court below of the second instance.

(1) The second original court shall be entitled to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter referred to as "Litigation Promotion").

On October 22, 2015, the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment by serving a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons by means of public notice pursuant to Article 23 and proceeding hearings in the state of absence of the defendant.

② On November 17, 2015, when the Defendant became aware of the fact that a judgment became final and conclusive as a result of the enforcement of a sentence by the lower judgment, the Defendant asserted to the effect that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was unable to receive a duplicate of the indictment by filing a request for recovery of his/her right to appeal (Seoul Southern District Court 2015 early 1798) on November 20, 2015.

③ On December 16, 2015, the above court rendered a decision to recover the right to appeal by recognizing that the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

2) There are grounds for filing a petition for retrial under the Act on Promotion of Litigation due to the lack of reasons attributable to the Defendant’s failure to attend the trial in the second instance court.

Recognizing that this court has recognized this court's new litigation procedures, such as serving the defendant with a duplicate of indictment, and thus, the judgment of the second court cannot be maintained as it is.

3. All the judgment of the court below are reversed and the arguments are followed, and it is again decided as follows (Provided, That the judgment of the court below No. 2 is dismissed as "19 million won" in the 8th sentence of the second instance judgment No. 3 and "19 million won" in the 8th sentence of the court below, and the summary of criminal facts and evidence are as follows.