The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The lower court served a copy, etc. of the indictment by means 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 one year on August 26, 2015, while 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 by asserting that he was not aware of the fact that the prosecution was instituted because the copy, etc. of the indictment was not served.

3. On November 13, 2015, this 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 a retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Litigation Promotion Act, and it is reasonable to deem that the ground for appeal corresponding to the "when there is a ground for the request for a retrial" under Article 361-5 (1) 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act is alleged. In light of the records, there are grounds for the request for a retrial

Recognized.

The appellate court, as an appellate court, shall proceed with new litigation procedures, such as delivering a copy of indictment, etc. again to the defendant, reverse the judgment below and render a new judgment in accordance with the result of a new trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

3. In conclusion, the court below's decision is reasonable in that it has a ground for reversal ex officio as above, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.