The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The reason for appeal by the defendant is that the original sentence is too heavy.

Since the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2017 High Order 695 Decided September 22, 2017, which sentenced four months of imprisonment against the defendant, became final and conclusive as of September 22, 2017, and the crime of this case and the crime stated in the above judgment, are in a concurrent crime relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it is a circumstance favorable to the defendant that the court is obliged to determine punishment in consideration of equity

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant had already been tried by the lower court on the instant crime while receiving a four-month sentence in the foregoing case, and that the lower court appears to have considered such circumstances and all other conditions of sentencing as indicated in the record, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed unfair.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed, and as seen earlier, the lower judgment is not reversed without considering the fact that the details of the final judgment seems to have been already reflected in the lower judgment, and the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for four months at the Seoul Central District Court for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act on July 12, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 22, 2017.

B. “The search details of each judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2017 High Court 695, 2017 High Court 695, 2608) and B’s search records (Seoul Central District Court 2017No. 2608)” were added to the column for the necessity of evidence, and “1. Concurrent treatment of concurrent crimes: 37 latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and ex officio correction is made after adding each of “the first sentence of Article 39(1).”