1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

3.Provided, That it shall be for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (limited to six months of imprisonment and 40 hours of order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) that the court below pronounced is too unreasonable;

(A) In light of the records of ex officio determination, the court of original judgment is aware of the following facts: ① serve a writ of summons, etc. on the defendant by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings; ② the defendant has filed a claim for recovery of his/her right to appeal against the judgment of final and conclusive judgment; ② the defendant has filed a claim for recovery of his/her right to appeal against the judgment of final and conclusive judgment; ③ The court of original judgment recognized the defendant as not to file an appeal within the appeal period

Since the Defendant was unable to attend the trial in the trial due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, there was a ground for requesting a retrial under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which constitutes “when there is a ground for requesting a retrial,” which is the ground for appeal under Article 361-

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Accordingly, this Court shall proceed with a new litigation proceeding and render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial, and thus, the lower judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows. The summary of the evidence presented by the court below is the same as the statement in each corresponding column of the judgment below, except for the case where the "1. Part of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant" in Part 7 of the second part of the summary of the evidence of the court below is applied to "1. The defendant's trial testimony". Thus, it is accepted as it is in accordance