The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant was unable to attend the trial in the original instance due to the lack of the defendant's knowledge of the fact that a public prosecution was instituted because he/she was not served with a duplicate of the indictment, etc. under Article 23-2 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) that is unfair is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for a request for retrial among the grounds for appeal

A. The record reveals the following facts.

1) Under Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the lower court served a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons, etc. by the method of serving public notice, and sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment by proceeding the trial without his/her absence

2) After that, upon the arrest of the Defendant on August 24, 2018 due to the execution of a sentence established by the lower judgment that became formally final and conclusive, the Defendant filed an appeal with this court, and claimed that he was unaware of the fact that he did not receive a delivery of a copy of the indictment, etc., upon filing a petition for recovery of his right of appeal.

3) On September 5, 2018, the lower court rendered a decision to recover the Defendant’s right to appeal by recognizing that the Defendant was unable to file an appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant was unable to attend the trial due to a cause not attributable to him, and therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of a request for retrial under Article 23-2 of the Act on Special Cases

As such, this constitutes the grounds for appeal under Article 361-5 subparag. 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the court below served a copy, etc. of the indictment again at the trial, and served all the procedure of the trial including the investigation of evidence, the court below became unable to maintain any further proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015; 2015Do11878, Nov. 26, 2015). 3. Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is justified.