The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below (one hundred 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 Article 19(2) of the Special Rules on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, even in cases where summons of a defendant against the defendant in the first instance trial is made by service of public notice at the public trial without a statement of the defendant, the court requires that the defendant summoned by means of service of public notice should be absent at least twice. Thus, where the defendant summoned by means of service of public notice is absent, the court may proceed with the trial proceedings where the defendant is absent only when the defendant is absent by means of service of public notice again designating the date of public trial and serving public notice. (See Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1094, May 13, 201). Accordingly, the court below, on January 18, 2016, did not err in the misapprehension of the first procedure of public trial by serving the documents of public notice, such as a duplicate of indictment, the writ of summons of the defendant, etc., and after serving the defendant on March 16, 2016, the court below’s failure to appear at the public trial proceeding without the first procedure of public trial.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Judgment to be used again]