A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. The lower court, in so doing, omitted a fine or penal detention to be imposed concurrently on the Defendant by choosing imprisonment, which is not prescribed by the Act, with respect to the driving of each of the instant crimes, and by sentencing a single imprisonment with prison labor as an aggravated concurrent crimes with the remaining crimes of the Defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of protection, observation of the community service order, 80 hours of community service order, 40 hours of compliance driving lecture) is excessively uneasible and unfair.

2. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, each violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) is against Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, and thus, Article 154 subparag. 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a fine not exceeding 300,000 won shall be imposed or penal detention shall be imposed.

Nevertheless, the court below selected imprisonment, which is not stipulated in the law, with respect to each of the above violations of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), and sentenced only imprisonment with prison labor by adding the remaining criminal facts to concurrent crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below has no longer been maintained, and the prosecutor's above assertion has merit.

3. Since an appeal concerning misapprehension of the legal principles of the prosecutor’s conclusion is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing, and the following is again decided after pleading.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment (abstinence, a sentence of imprisonment), Article 154 Subparag. 2 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (abstinence, a fine driving), and Article 2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.