The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Although Article 154 subparag. 2 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who commits a violation of the provisions of Article 154 subparag. 2 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act shall be punished by a fine, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the imprisonment without labor is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service order of 160 hours) is too unhued and unfair.

The defendant's act of driving under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver's license is one of the acts of driving under the social concept.

As such, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseed driving) are in an ordinary concurrent relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731, Feb. 24, 1987, etc.). The court below selected and punished imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-driving) which is a more serious crime under Article 40 of the Criminal Act, and thus did not concurrently impose a fine.

Even if there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Although the defendant had been punished for a fine of KRW 1 million due to the drinking driving in 2010, a fine of KRW 2 million due to the drinking driving in 2010, and a fine of KRW 5 million due to the drinking driving in 2015, he/she has repeatedly committed the instant driving without obtaining a license for driving under the influence of alcohol in 2015, the fact that the blood alcohol concentration level is high as 0.229%.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including ① the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, and conditions after the crime, there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine, ② the driving distance of the Defendant was about 150 meters, ② the Defendant’s driving distance was not long, ③ the Defendant sold the Oral Sea and continued to receive the mental and medical treatment as to the drinking habit (the attached data in his written reply on May 31, 2017) and other sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too small.

The appeal by the prosecutor is justified.