The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts acknowledged by the ex officio judgment records, the defendant is unable to attend the trial proceedings of the court of original instance due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, he may request a retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc.

Therefore, this court shall reverse the judgment of the court below and render a new judgment in accordance with the result of the hearing in this court (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015, etc.). Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since the court below cannot be affirmed.

A. On January 18, 2018, the lower court served a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of the Defendant by means of serving public notice in accordance with Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and sentenced the Defendant to one year imprisonment, while the Defendant was absent.

B. The Defendant was unable to be served with a duplicate of the indictment and was unaware of the fact that the judgment was pronounced.

The claim for recovery of the right of appeal was filed.

(c)

The original court recognized that the defendant was unable to appeal within the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to him and decided to recover his right to appeal.

3. Since the judgment of the court below on the basis of the above reasons for reversal ex officio, it is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as shown in the corresponding column of the judgment below, except for the deletion of the "1. The protocol of interrogation of the suspect against the defendant" and the addition of "1. The defendant's trial testimony" to the summary of the evidence, so the Criminal Procedure Act is the same.