Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the statutory penalty for the facts charged in the instant case is not more than three million won, and the lower court erred by sentencing a fine exceeding the maximum statutory penalty of five million won.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (5 million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in this case and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in this case are conceptual concurrence.

The crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in this case is “a punishment for not more than six months or a fine not exceeding three million won” and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in this case is “a punishment for not more than one year or a fine not exceeding three million won” and, in comparison with the seriousness of the statutory penalty, if a selective form of the statutory penalty exists in a comparison with the seriousness of the statutory penalty, the punishment for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in this case should be imposed on the basis of the most severe penalty. Therefore, the punishment for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) with heavier penalty should be imposed.

However, the lower court erred by imposing a fine of KRW 5 million following the selection of a fine of KRW 5 million, which is the upper limit of statutory penalty, on the grounds that the sentence imposed on the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is to be imposed, and thereby sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is rendered again after pleading

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court 】 The facts constituting a crime and the summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below, and thus, the gist of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below.