The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (three months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the judgment, and consistently recognize the Defendant’s mistake from the beginning of the instant investigation to the court of the first instance.

The defendant is in a state with inconvenience to move due to the lusium, and the family members of the defendant want to move in.

The Defendant, after the instant case, scrapped, and the Defendant seems to have been working to avoid driving again.

The Defendant was detained on May 18, 2017 and detained for three months on May 18, 2017, and had sufficient opportunity to return his/her life as his/her own name and to reflect the instant crime.

I seem to appear.

In light of the above circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, occupation, family relationship, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment below is reversed and it is ruled again as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The criminal facts against the defendant recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are identical to the facts stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 152 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the same Act concerning facts constituting a crime, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant is breaking his mistake in depth, and other factors for sentencing as prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all of the factors for sentencing as prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.