A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine inasmuch as Article 35 of the Criminal Act applies to the crime of this case, even though the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment and did not commit the crime within three years after the completion of or exemption from the execution of the punishment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Any person who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles and commits a crime equivalent to or greater than imprisonment without prison labor within three years after the execution thereof is completed or exempted, shall be punished as

(Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act. In this case, it is necessary to terminate or exempt the execution of screening. As such, even if a suspended sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment is imposed and a person commits a crime equivalent to or greater than imprisonment without prison labor during the suspended sentence, it cannot be said that the person satisfies the requirements for aggravation

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do1600 Decided August 23, 1983, etc.). According to the records, the following can be acknowledged: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act on October 11, 2018, and two years of suspended execution, and the judgment was finalized on October 19, 2018; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime on October 26, 2019 during the period of suspended execution; and (c) the lower court convicted the instant crime and aggravated repeated crimes by applying Article 35 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the application of the law by aggravated aggravation of repeated crimes against the crime of this case which failed to meet the requirements for aggravated repeated crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is justified.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Thus, 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 through pleading.

[Grounds for the judgment]