The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the proviso of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant's ex officio, in cases where the defendant's grounds of appeal fall under death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for not less than ten years, the defendant may not be tried without the defendant'

However, according to the records, the crime of this case is a crime falling under Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and its statutory punishment is limited to not less than one year. Thus, this case is punishable by imprisonment with prison labor for more than ten years. Nonetheless, the court below can find the fact that the court below sentenced the judgment on March 18, 2014 after serving the defendant by public notice and proceeding the trial date without the defendant's attendance. According to the above facts of recognition, the court below erred by violating the proviso to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc.

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

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court is added to the summary of the evidence in addition to the "1. The defendant's statement in court" in the summary of the evidence, and except for deletion of the "statement in the police interrogation protocol against the defendant", it is identical to each corresponding part of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is true in accordance