On July 18, 2015, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges, such as attack against the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of 10 years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) on the premise that both of the crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, on the premise that the Defendant committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) with respect to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) and imprisonment with prison labor for the remainder of the crimes, on August 13, 2015, under the condition that he/she was under the influence of alcohol without a motor driver's license, and that he/she committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-exclusive driver's license without license) with respect to the remainder of imprisonment with prison labor for one year two.

However, the defendant's driving of a motor bicycle without obtaining a motor device bicycle license is an act of driving one in light of social norms, and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving in drinking) and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) are in a commercial concurrent relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

As such, (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731 delivered on February 24, 1987). Although punishment should be imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) with heavy punishment, the court below held that the above two crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

There is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the number of crimes in the preceding and both imprisonment and fine.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.