The judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Chuncheon District Court's Panel Division.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act among the instant charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. We examine ex officio.

The term "a crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall be deemed concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime which has not been adjudicated among concurrent crimes and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1)

In the instant indictment, on October 20, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on the six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to an injury in the Gangnam Branch of the Chuncheon District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2016, and stated that it is currently during the period of suspension of execution.

The records include the first instance judgment and the fact that the above judgment became final and conclusive, and the output of the inquiry in the prosecution's internal case is bound.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the injury was committed on June 12, 2016. As such, the crime of injury in this case and the crime of injury in this case, which became final and conclusive, constitute concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the lower court shall apply Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act to determine the punishment for the instant injury.