A. In light of the legal principles, although the defendant was sentenced to two years of probation on September 3, 2002 due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the defendant does not constitute a person who was sentenced to suspended sentence, since the period of suspended sentence was imposed and the punishment was pardoned.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not render a judgment of suspended sentence against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to suspended sentence.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (the amount of KRW 1.5 million, the amount of KRW 40,000, the amount of which was 1.500,000, the amount of which was 40 hours, and

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court did not have determined that the Defendant was unable to render a judgment of suspended sentence due to a previous conviction of qualification suspension or more than the suspension of qualification, but we examine whether the Defendant can render

Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that in cases where a sentence of imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not more than one year, suspension of qualifications or a fine is to be imposed, and the whole circumstances have been remarkable in consideration of the matters prescribed in Article 51, the suspension of sentence may be suspended.

A person who has been sentenced to suspension of qualifications or more severe punishment shall be excepted.

"A previous conviction who has been sentenced to the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment" in the proviso refers to a criminal history of which the suspension of qualification or heavier punishment has been sentenced, and it is reasonable to interpret that the punishment has lost its validity or not.

Meanwhile, even if a person, who was sentenced to a suspended sentence, loses its effect after the lapse of the specified grace period without the invalidation or cancellation of the sentence under Article 65 of the Criminal Act, this does not have the legal effect of the sentence, and the fact that the sentence was pronounced does not exist in itself. Thus, the proviso of Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act is stipulated.