The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than eight months;

2. Ex officio determination

A. The ground for the first destruction: A health class ex officio in violation of the principle of no accusation; while the court below acknowledged the facts charged that the defendant driven a drinking alcohol on at least two occasions even though he/she had a history of driving a drinking alcohol, it does not apply Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018; Act No. 15530, Mar. 28, 2019; Act No. 148-2 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act) as a violation of Article 148-2 (2) 1 and Article 44 (1) without any justifiable reason. The court below erred by misapprehending the principle of no accusation

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

B. Grounds for destruction 2: In light of the records, the court of original judgment sent a copy of indictment and a writ of summons by public notice in accordance with Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and sentenced the defendant to eight months by conducting deliberation in the absence of the defendant. The defendant stated that he was unaware of the progress of the trial in the first instance by public notice when he requested the recovery of the right to appeal against the judgment of the court below formally finalized, and that he was unaware of the progress of the trial in the first instance

Therefore, the defendant's failure to attend the trial of the court below is recognized as the grounds for the request for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings due to the lack of causes attributable to the defendant in the trial of the court below. Accordingly, this court shall proceed with new litigation procedures, such as serving a duplicate of indictment on the defendant, and render another judgment according to the result of new trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 201

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.