The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable as the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, ① the court of original judgment sent a copy of indictment and a writ of summons by means of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and sentenced the defendant to eight months of imprisonment by conducting hearings in the absence of the defendant. ② When the defendant is arrested by the execution of punishment in accordance with the judgment below which became formally final and conclusive, the defendant claimed that he was unaware of the fact that he applied for recovery of the right to appeal and was unable to receive a copy of indictment, etc., and ③ the court of original judgment recognized that he was unable to appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and decided

As the Defendant was unable to attend the trial in the lower court due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, the lower court’s judgment constitutes “when there is a cause for requesting a retrial” (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015) which is the grounds for appeal prescribed in Article 361-5 subparag. 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the grounds for appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s judgment cannot be maintained as it is, given that the Defendant is unable to serve a duplicate of indictment on the Defendant,

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, and it is again decided after pleading.

[Re-written judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence admitted by this court and summary of evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for adding “1. Defendant’s oral statement” to the summary of evidence. Thus, it is true in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.