All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio is based on the judgment of the court below, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of all the above appeal cases.

However, since each of the offenses against the defendants in the first and second judgment constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the court of first instance sent a copy of indictment, a summons of the defendant, etc. by means of serving public notice in accordance with Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and sentenced six months to imprisonment by conducting hearings in the absence of the defendant. The defendant, who requested recovery of his/her right of appeal after being arrested by the execution of punishment in accordance with Article 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance which became formally final and conclusive, argued that he/she was unaware of the fact that he/she was sentenced due to his/her failure to obtain a copy of indictment, a summons of the defendant, etc., and the court of first instance recognized that the defendant was unable to

There are grounds for a request for retrial under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Litigation on the ground that the defendant was not responsible for failing to attend the trial of the court of first instance.

Recognizing this, this court has completed a new litigation procedure, such as serving a copy of indictment on the defendant, and rendered a new judgment according to the result of a new trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015). Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained as it is.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified because there are reasons for reversal of authority as above.