The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

According to the records of this case, the court of the court below delivered a copy of the indictment, a summons of the defendant, etc. through the method of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and sentenced six months to imprisonment by conducting a trial in the absence of the defendant. The defendant, who formally became final and conclusive, arrested the defendant through the execution of the punishment in accordance with the above judgment below, and argued that he was unaware of the fact that the judgment was pronounced because he was unable to obtain a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons of the defendant, etc., and the court of the court below recognized that the defendant was unable to appeal within

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 serving a copy of indictment on the defendant, and rendered a new judgment according to the result of a new trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

On the other hand, Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act provide that when a person who committed an offense without a complaint surrenderss himself/herself or surrenders himself/herself before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or remitted.

However, the Defendant, at the first trial date, led to the confession of the instant non-prosecution crime at the trial date, and the Defendant appears to have been subject to a non-prosecution disposition in the instant case against B, and it is apparent that the judgment became final and conclusive, so the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant ought to be reduced or exempted as necessary pursuant to Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, this is applicable.