The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence admitted by the court of first instance as to the ground of appeal on the mistake of facts in the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in finding facts.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the requisite mitigation of the amount of fine, a judge shall determine the sentence by taking into account the conditions of sentencing within the scope of the applicable sentences formed through the reduction of or exemption from the statutory penalty, etc. in sentencing.

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that sentenced a fine of one million won to the Defendant on the instant criminal facts in accordance with Article 82 Subparag. 1 and Article 10(5) of the former Automobile Management Act (Amended by Act No. 10721, May 24, 201); provided that the Defendant’s reduction of mental or physical disability pursuant to Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200 million won).

However, Article 82 Subparag. 1 of the former Automobile Management Act provides that a person who has committed an act violating Article 10(5) of the same Act shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one million won. Therefore, when statutory mitigation is made, the punishment for the defendant shall be reduced by one half of the maximum amount pursuant to Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the punishment for the defendant shall be mitigated by one half of the maximum amount of the fine, which is the maximum amount of the fine, and the court below shall determine the sentence within the scope thereof.

Nevertheless, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced a fine of one million won to the defendant, and there is an error in the court below's determination of punishment in excess of the scope of punishment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed.