The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. The lower court’s punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment and a fine of 300,00 won) is too unreasonable, which is the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In addition to finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, such as attack against the Defendant, the lower court: (a) separately established the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) on the premise that both of the crimes are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; (b) on the premise that: (c) the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at around 15:59 on July 18, 2015 without a motor bicycle driver’s license, driving a 49cc obane while under the influence of alcohol at around 18:57 on August 13, 2015; and (d) on the facts that he/she had driven a 49cc obane without a motor driver’s license, he/she sentenced a fine to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving); and (c) on the premise that both of the crimes are concurrent crimes under the condition that he/she has both concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; (d)

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.

3. Conclusion.