The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. On January 15, 2016, the lower court served a copy, etc. of the indictment on the method of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion”) on the grounds that the whereabouts of the Defendant cannot be identified, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for six months on January 15, 2016, when the Defendant was absent.

2) After the period of appeal against the lower judgment was expired, the Defendant filed a petition for recovery of his right to appeal with the purport that he was unaware of the fact that the public prosecution was instituted.

3) On March 30, 2016, the court rendered a decision to recover the defendant's right to appeal by recognizing that the defendant's failure to appeal within the appeal period was caused by a cause not attributable to the defendant.

B. The ground for appeal for the right of appeal filed by the defendant is alleged to have a ground for the request for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Litigation Promotion Act, and it is reasonable to deem that the ground for appeal corresponding to "when there is a ground for request for retrial" under Article 361-5 (1) 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act is alleged. Even according to the record, there is no reason for the request for retrial under the provisions of the Litigation Promotion Act because the defendant was unable to appear in the trial

Recognized.

The appellate court, which is the appellate court, shall reverse the judgment of the court below and render a new judgment in accordance with the result of a new trial, by delivering a copy, etc. of the indictment again to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio as above. Thus, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument about sentencing.