The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, the crime No. 2, 3, and 4 of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Progress of judgment;

A. The Defendant appealed against the lower judgment on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair, and the trial prior to the remanding of the case rejected the Defendant’s assertion and rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal.

Accordingly, the defendant's dismissal was made.

B. The Supreme Court rendered a judgment that reversed and remanded the judgment of the court prior to remanding on the ground that Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act does not take account of equity in the case where the above judgment concurrently ruled the crime, which became final and conclusive by applying Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act, becomes final and conclusive as another judgment sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment against the defendant prior to the crime of injury among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court of first instance prior to remand, and the crime for which the above judgment became final and conclusive, constitutes concurrent crimes.

2. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) shall be too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

3. Ex officio determination

A. On January 24, 2018, the Defendant’s defense counsel against the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of alcohol measurement)

The court of appeals asserts that the charge of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of alcohol measurement) should be pronounced not guilty, inasmuch as there is no reasonable ground to determine whether to permit the measurement of drinking, and the court of appeals can judge ex officio on the grounds that affect the judgment, even if it is not included in the reasoning of appeal.

2) The crime of refusing to comply with the measurement of drinking under Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act is under the influence of alcohol.

A person who has a reasonable reason to be determined is established when he/she fails to comply with the measurement by a police officer pursuant to Article 44 (2) of the same Act, and in order to establish a crime of refusing to comply with the measurement of drinking, a driver is punished as a crime of drinking driving at the time of the request for measurement of drinking.