All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months) that the court below sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, this Court filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and decided to hold concurrent hearings. Each of the offenses against each of the court below constitutes concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained since one of the concurrent offenses is to be sentenced within the period of punishment imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act (in addition, according to the records of this case, the court of first instance sent a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons, etc. by serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and sentenced ten months to imprisonment with prison labor, and the defendant was arrested with the execution of the sentence under the above judgment of the court below which became formally final and conclusive, and argued that the court below rejected the fact that it was sentenced due to the failure to obtain a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of the defendant, etc., and that the defendant was not found within the period of appeal.

Therefore, there is no reason to return to the court below's failure to attend the trial and there is a reason to request a retrial under Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, etc.

Recognizing this, this court has completed a new litigation procedure, such as delivering a duplicate of indictment to the defendant, and has to render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect). 3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal.