The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence imposed on the defendant (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of this case’s ex officio determination, the lower court: (a) served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons by means of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; (b) sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment on June 16, 2016, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of suspended execution; (c) asserted that the Defendant was unable to attend the trial due to his/her failure to know the fact of public prosecution when he/she filed a petition for recovery of his/her right to appeal with the Changwon District Court 2017 early 324, April 24, 2017; and (c) recognized that the lower court was unable to appeal on May 8, 2017 due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, and rendered a decision to recover the right to appeal.

In light of the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the court below's second judgment has a ground for requesting a retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings since the defendant was unable to attend the trial proceedings of the court below in the second instance.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the trial court shall proceed with new litigation procedures, such as delivering a copy of the indictment again to the defendant, and make a new decision according to the result of the trial, such as the statement and examination of evidence, etc. in the trial. Therefore, the judgment of the court below of the second instance is no longer able to be maintained.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court below of second instance, and this court tried both the appeal cases against the judgment of the court of second instance and the appeal cases against the judgment of the court of second instance, and each of the offenses against the defendant with the judgment of the court of first and second instance are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained as it is, since it is the concurrent offenses under Article 3

3. Conclusion