The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the records of recognition, the following facts are recognized.

(1) On April 5, 2016, the lower court served a copy of the indictment on the method of serving public notice under Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings on the ground that the whereabouts of the Defendant cannot be confirmed, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for one year on the part of the Defendant in his/her absence.

B. The Defendant filed a petition for recovery of his/her right of appeal by asserting that he/she was not aware of the fact that the indictment was not served on May 30, 2016, when he/she was arrested by the execution of the sentence in accordance with the lower judgment.

On June 8, 2016, the court below rendered a decision to recover the defendant's right to appeal in the purport that the defendant's failure to appeal within the appeal period would result from a cause not attributable to the defendant.

B. According to the ground for appeal of the right of appeal filed by the defendant for an ex officio determination, it is reasonable to view that the defendant alleged that there is a ground for the request for retrial under Article 23-2 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “the provisions for retrial of this case”), and that the defendant alleged the ground for appeal corresponding to “when there is a ground for the request for retrial” under Article 361-5 (1) 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and even according to the records, there are grounds for

Recognized.

Therefore, the appellate court, as an appellate court, should reverse the judgment of the first instance court and render a new judgment in accordance with the result of a new trial, following the new proceedings, such as delivering a copy, etc. of indictment again to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8243, Nov. 26, 2015, etc.). In this respect, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio.