A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

2. Considering that the nature of the instant crime is not good and that the Defendant’s negligence is serious, strict punishment against the Defendant is necessary.

However, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable in light of the defendant's circumstances after the crime committed in this case's pleading, such as the fact that the defendant has been living in prison for a approximately two-month period, that the defendant has agreed with the victims, that the defendant has been a criminal record of the same kind of crime but has been relatively old, the balance of sentencing with the same crime, the defendant's age, character and conduct and environment, the motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime. Thus,

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts charged and the summary of the evidence, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime by applicable law;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;