The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to depression, depression, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

According to the records, the lower court: (a) concluded the proceedings in which the Defendant was present and announced on May 29, 2018 at the seventh trial date as the date of pronouncement; (b) the Defendant was not present on the said sentencing date; (c) the Defendant was summoned on June 19, 2018 and was not served due to the absence of documents; and (d) the lower court sentenced the Defendant on February 1, 2019 when the Defendant was absent pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings after having decided to serve documents on the Defendant by public notice; and (iv) thereafter, the Defendant filed an appeal for the recovery of the Defendant’s right to appeal on November 25, 2019; and (v) the Prosecutor’s immediate appeal against the said decision was also dismissed on the ground that the execution officer of service by public notice was either able to request correction or correction and thus became final and conclusive.”

According to the above facts, the defendant could not attend the trial proceedings of the court for the reason that he could not be held responsible due to illegal service by public notice. Thus, it is recognized that there is a ground for the request for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability still remains.