The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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

According to the records, the court of original judgment shall serve a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons by public notice in accordance with Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and shall proceed with the trial in the absence of the defendant and thereby sentenced to six months of imprisonment. The defendant filed a petition for recovery of his/her right on September 17, 2019 against the judgment of the court below which became formally final and conclusive, and the court of original judgment recognized that the defendant was unable to appeal within the appeal period on September 27, 2019 due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to attend the trial of the court below due to a cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the court below's judgment has a ground for requesting a retrial under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which constitutes "when there is a ground for requesting a retrial," which is the ground for appeal under

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Therefore, this Court shall proceed with new litigation procedures, such as serving a copy of indictment on the accused, and render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial. Therefore, the lower judgment cannot be maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court are identical to the facts stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, except for the alteration of "part of the protocol of suspect interrogation of the police officer against the defendant" to "1. The defendant's trial testimony" in the summary of evidence of the judgment below.