The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As such, the lower court sentenced a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor pursuant to Article 38(2) of the Criminal Act, since the lower court, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, punish the Defendant as concurrent offenders of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and the violation of the Road Traffic Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended execution for four months of imprisonment without prison labor, and 40 hours of compliance driving lecture) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

(2) Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act provides that “In the event of concurrent crimes at the same time, the punishment specified for each crime shall be aggravated by up to one half thereof with the maximum term or maximum amount specified for the most severe crime, but shall not exceed the total of the maximum term or maximum amount of the punishment specified for each crime,” and Article 38(2) of the Criminal Act provides that “In the case falling under any of the subparagraphs of the preceding paragraph, imprisonment and imprisonment without prison labor shall be punished by imprisonment for the same kind of punishment and imprisonment without prison labor,” respectively.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 38(2) of the Criminal Act that the court below selected the defendant's imprisonment without prison labor for the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and imposed punishment as imprisonment without prison labor for concurrent crimes by selecting imprisonment for the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument about this part is justified.

3. As such, the prosecutor's argument on the above misapprehension of the legal principles is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument on the unfair sentencing, and the following is

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and facts constituting the crime recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence.