According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the crime of injury by occupational negligence and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act against the defendant in its judgment shall be deemed to be in a commercial concurrent relationship as prescribed in Article 40 of the Criminal Act, and in the case where two crimes of imprisonment without prison labor and imprisonment with prison labor are in a commercial concurrent relationship, even though there is no express provision such as Article 38(2) of the Criminal Act, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the defendant in six months, and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence for six months, since the traditional criminal theory, which distinguish between imprisonment and imprisonment without prison labor, adopted the new concept of labor, the impact of labor on mental and physical health, and the liberalization of imprisonment with prison labor, has been a significant argument in the modern criminal policy theory that the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor should be unified, it is clear that the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the defendant in its imprisonment with prison labor and the suspended sentence for one year for six months.

Article 40 of the Criminal Code provides that "If a single act constitutes several crimes, the most serious crime shall be committed."

Punishment is defined as "the punishment imposed", and in relation to the punishment for commercial concurrent crimes, substantive concurrent crimes

Article 38 (2) of the Criminal Act, which is a provision on punishment for the defendant, shall not be applicable mutatis mutandis. Thus, since the crime of injury by occupational negligence and fine, which is a crime committed in the judgment of the court below, which is a crime punishable against the defendant, is committed only by imprisonment without prison labor and fine, and since imprisonment with prison labor is not imposed, the court below sentenced the defendant for six months. In addition, according to the records, although it is evident that only the defendant appealed against the defendant in the first instance court for six months, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and sentenced the defendant for one year of a suspended sentence in six months, and the suspended sentence is not invalidated or cancelled after the sentence was sentenced, and if the suspended sentence is invalidated or cancelled, the sentence becomes null and void, and the defendant should be sentenced to the execution of the sentence, it cannot be considered that the suspension of the execution of the sentence of the court below conflicts with the above Article 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the first instance court's imprisonment without prison labor and the principle against the disadvantage of the defendant in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Appellate Forces. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-hee (Presiding Justice)