The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the misapprehension of the legal principles, the act of driving a motorcycle without obtaining a license for a motorcycle under the Road Traffic Act requires a fine not exceeding 300,000 won or penal detention. The judgment below erred by omitting a fine or penal detention to be imposed concurrently on the defendant by sentencing a single imprisonment with labor as to the act of driving a motorcycle without a license for a motorcycle among each of the crimes in this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s driving of a motorcycle while under influence of 0.210% of the blood alcohol concentration without a driver’s license constitutes a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a driver’s license). Both crimes constitute a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a driver’s license) and a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a driver’s license). As such, in the ordinary concurrent relationship, punishment under Articles 40 and 50

Therefore, as long as the court below selects the defendant to be sentenced to imprisonment for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, the defendant cannot be sentenced to a fine or penal detention as provided for in the above crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act. Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

B. Although the Defendant had had a history of punishment for the same kind of crime over several occasions, the Defendant again committed each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was very high by 0.210%, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol level was significantly high by the instant accident, and the Defendant’s minor victim suffered serious injury that requires 10 weeks’ medical treatment due to the instant accident is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant is responsible for the occurrence of the instant accident even to the victim who made a confession of all the instant crimes and reflects his depth, and the defendant is also responsible for the occurrence of the instant accident.