All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 3 million, the second instance: the fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. The appellate court, ex officio, decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the defendant by the lower court.

Since each crime of the judgment below is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment for which concurrent crimes are aggravated by judgment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, all judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed in entirety, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court shall be as shown in the corresponding columns of the original judgment.

In accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, they are quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 67 subparagraph 7 of the same Act and the main sentence of Article 56 of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense and the selection of a penalty;

2. Aggravation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for a violation of the Act on Trucking Transport Business on June 23, 2015, with the largest penalty);

3. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

4. The fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for the same offense for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Defendant’s crime of this case provided the private-use truck for transport of cargo at a cost, which led to three times the number of times. In particular, even though the violation of the Act was discovered, the Defendant committed a violation of the Act again on June 23, 2015 is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant is attempting to commit a crime;