All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for four months and the second judgment of the court of the court of the appeal: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the court of first and second instance shall concurrently examine the cases of appeal by the court of first and second instance against the defendant. The crimes of the court of first and second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be punished as a single sentence within the term of punishment or amount increased by concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above grounds for reversal ex officio are established. The judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence recognized by the court is the same as the entries in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant laws concerning facts constituting a crime and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of driving without a license and the choice of each imprisonment);

1. From 2003 to 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine on five occasions on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent offenders. From 2003 to 2010, the Defendant committed the crime of the first instance court during the period of probation even when he was sentenced to imprisonment for four months due to a non-licensed driving, and two years due to a suspended sentence, and the first instance court committed the second instance court’s crime during the period of probation.

As such, there is no eradicating the criminal defendant's unlicensed driving crime even in the repeated punishment and the preemptive action, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, the defendant reflects his depth on the crime of this case.