The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the records, the court of original judgment may recognize the following facts: (i) serve a writ of summons, etc. by public notice on the defendant pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings and proceed with the trial in the state of absence of the defendant, and (ii) the defendant alleged to the effect that he was unable to attend the trial because he filed a request for recovery of his right of appeal against the judgment of original judgment formally finalized, and was unable to receive the documents of lawsuit due to failure to receive the documents of lawsuit; and (iii) the court of original judgment recognized that the defendant was unable to appeal within the appeal period due to any cause not attributable to the defendant, and thereby, recognized

B. According to the above facts, it is recognized that there is no reason attributable to the defendant in failure to attend the trial of the court below, and there is a reason to request a retrial under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Accordingly, the court below cannot maintain the judgment below as it is

(2) The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and is determined as follows through new pleadings, on November 26, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 201Do8243, Nov. 26,

[Dao-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, except where the court below’s “1. Each police interrogation protocol against the defendant” is deemed to be “1. The defendant’s trial statement” as “the defendant’s trial statement at the trial.” Thus, it is identical to the corresponding column of the court below’s judgment.

The laws and regulations;