The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 15 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (eight million won of a fine) by the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects on it, and there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the agreement with the victim.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was punished by a fine for drunk driving in 2008, 201, 2011, and 2013; (b) the Defendant driven a motor vehicle without a license while drinking alcohol; (c) the Defendant refused to comply with the police officer’s lawful demand for a drinking test; (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances before and after the instant crime were committed; and (e) the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable as it is deemed unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, according to the conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied Judgment] The facts constituting an offense and the summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (a point of refusing to measure the noise level), subparagraphs 1 and 43 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and selection of fines for negligence;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the amounts);

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the same as the above paragraph (2) of the same Article.

However, on April 10, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta for six months, and is currently under suspension of execution. Considering that the above crimes are the crimes of this case and the crimes of different types, the Defendant is under suspension of execution.