The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which sentenced a suspended sentence against the defendant, despite the grounds for disqualification from the suspended sentence, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the suspended sentence.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment without prison labor and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, it can be recognized that the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) at the Jung-gu District Court on February 2, 2015 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on February 10, 2015. Thus, where a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment was sentenced for a crime committed for a period of three years after the completion or exemption of the execution, the execution of the sentence may not be suspended (proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act). Thus, the court below which sentenced the suspended sentence against the defendant, despite the grounds for disqualification of the suspended sentence, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle

The prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is with merit.

B. It is recognized that the victim suffered serious injury on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and that the defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of double-class crime.

However, the Defendant did not pay the instant traffic accident by negligence under the proviso of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, but rather, it seems that there is a considerable fault on the part of the victim who illegally crossed a large road.

A motor vehicle operated by the defendant was covered by a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and the defendant seems to have taken appropriate measures for dealing with accidents.

The Defendant agreed with the family members of the victim.

. The above.