The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio as to the service of publication by the court below

A. On March 18, 2016, the lower court served a copy, etc. of the indictment on the method of serving public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion”) on the grounds that the whereabouts of the Defendant cannot be identified, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for six months on March 18, 2016, when the Defendant was absent.

2) However, the lower court served a summons on the date of the seventh trial on February 17, 2016 and the date of the eighth trial on March 9, 2016, by means of serving a public notice to the Defendant. However, on the date of the nine public trial as of March 18, 2016, the lower court, without serving a summons on the Defendant on the date of the nine public trial as of March 18, 2016, sentenced the said judgment as above on the date of the public trial.

3) After the period of appeal against the lower judgment was expired, the Defendant filed a petition for recovery of his right of appeal by asserting that he was not aware of the fact that the public prosecution was instituted due to his failure to receive a duplicate of indictment.

4) On August 8, 2016, the court rendered a decision to recover the defendant's right to appeal by recognizing that the defendant's failure to appeal within the appeal period was caused by a cause not attributable to the defendant.

B. Determination 1) The ground for appeal of the right of appeal filed by the defendant is alleged as a ground for a request for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Litigation Promotion Act. It is reasonable to deem that the ground for appeal corresponding to the "when there is a ground for request for retrial" under Article 361-5 (1) 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act is alleged. Even according to the record, there are grounds for a request for retrial under the provisions of the Litigation Promotion Act because the defendant was not present in the trial of the court

Recognized.

The appellate court, as the appellate court, has tried to proceed with new litigation procedures by delivering a copy, etc. of indictment to the defendant again.