The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unable to attend the trial of the lower court due to a cause not attributable to him. Therefore, there is a ground for requesting a retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records, the court below sent a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons through the service of public notice in accordance with Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and sentenced one year to imprisonment by conducting hearings in the absence of the defendant. ② When the defendant is arrested by the execution of the sentence in accordance with the judgment below which became formally final and conclusive, the defendant asserted that he was unaware of the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he requested the recovery of his right to appeal and was not served with the copy of the indictment, etc., and ③ the court recognized that the defendant was not unable to appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to

In full view of this, the defendant was unable to appear in the trial proceedings of the court below for reasons not attributable to him.

may be filed.

Therefore, barring any other circumstance, there are grounds for a request for retrial under the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Litigation due to the Defendant’s failure to attend the trial of the lower court’s trial

Since the defendant's argument on this part of the grounds for appeal is justified (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015). 3. As such, the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, who was living together in the past, was aware of the passwords of the studio entrance of the victim B (n, 31 years of age) living together in the past and intruded into the victim's studio.