All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Each of the judgments of the court below (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and 2 months: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 months) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. The Defendant filed each appeal against the lower judgment, and the lower court decided to jointly deliberate on each of the above appeals cases.

Each of the crimes committed by the lower judgment guilty is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the lower judgment cannot be maintained any more.

B. According to the records of this case, the court of first instance may recognize the fact that: (a) pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion”), the Defendant served the Defendant with a written indictment and a writ of summons, etc.; (b) was convicted on October 27, 2016 on the grounds that he/she could not file an appeal within the period of appeal on January 13, 2017 due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant filed a written application for recovery of his/her right to appeal and filed a petition of appeal with the court of first instance on December 9, 2016; and (d) the court of first instance recognized that the Defendant could not file an appeal within the period of appeal due to the lack

According to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized that the defendant was unable to attend the first instance trial due to the reasons that he could not be held responsible.

Since it appears, there are grounds for a request for a retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Litigation Promotion Act.

Therefore, the appellate court, as an appellate court, should reverse the judgment of the first instance and render a new judgment in accordance with the results of a new trial following the new proceedings, such as serving a copy of the indictment, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

3. Conclusion.