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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not punish the Defendant as a drinking driver, since the Defendant made a mistake by reporting the contents reported to a newspaper article to the effect that drinking is permitted in the parking lot.

Since the Defendant conducted a measurement of drinking after about 40 minutes of the time of driving immediately after drinking, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving is lower than the blood alcohol concentration as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the language, legislative intent, etc. of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39(1) of the same Act, if a crime not yet adjudicated could not be judged concurrently with a crime for which judgment became final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that the crime cannot be established concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and that the sentence cannot be imposed, or the sentence cannot be mitigated or exempted, taking into consideration equity with the case to be adjudicated at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do469, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and records, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), which was committed on May 25, 2017, by the Defendant who was sentenced to a five-year suspended sentence for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), and the crime of violation of the Act, which became final and conclusive from the Seoul High Court Decision 2010.

Therefore, Article 37 of the Criminal Code is followed to the crime of June 15, 2017 and the crime of this case.