The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

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

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

Pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”), the lower court served a writ of summons, etc. by public notice and served one year with prison labor after having been absent for the Defendant. After that, the Defendant filed a claim for recovery of the right of appeal against the final and conclusive judgment of the lower court, and the lower court determined to recover the right of appeal by deeming that the Defendant was unable to file an appeal within the period of appeal due to

If so, there is no reason attributable to the defendant who was unable to attend the court on the court date, and thus, there is a reason to request a retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Procedure for Review. In such cases, this court shall proceed with a new litigation procedure by delivering a copy of indictment to the defendant and render a new judgment according to the result of a new trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Do17252, Jun. 25, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015).

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is decided as follows through pleading.

【The reasoning of the judgment below which was written] The facts constituting a crime and the summary of the evidence acknowledged by the court, and the summary of the evidence, are identical to the description of the judgment below, except where the police interrogation protocol against the defendant is changed to the "1. The defendant's court statement" in the summary of the evidence. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime;