A. In relation to the traffic accident of this case, it is unreasonable for the prosecutor to request the summary order of this case for the same case even though the defendant already paid a penalty by receiving a notice from the head of the Seoul Military Police Station.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of the payment of gold by law.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles, Article 164(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that any person who has received a notice of penalty payment and has received such notice shall not be punished again for the same offense. In light of the contents and purport of the provisions of the same Act concerning notification and payment of penalty, where a person has received a notice of penalty from the head of a police station for committing an offense and has paid the penalty, the act of not to be punished again shall be construed as limited to the relevant offense as stated in the reason for notification of penalty and the offenses recognized as identical to the same offense, and thus, it shall be construed as having been committed at the same place.

Even if a criminal act separate from an offense does not have the effect of non-guilty by payment of a penalty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do1296, Jul. 12, 1983; 2001Do849, Nov. 22, 2002). In such a case, a traffic accident makes it possible to institute a public prosecution against a driver who has committed a crime of bodily injury or bodily injury resulting from gross negligence against the victim’s express intent, which is stipulated in each proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.