The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The Defendant’s each crime of this case (the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseed driving) are in a mutually competitive relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act. The lower court, in the application of the Act, committed a mistake that did not compete on the ordinary grounds by omitting a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseed driving) in the application of the Act, and thus, the lower court could no longer be maintained in this respect.

3. As such, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

【Judgment rendered again, the Defendant, on April 20, 2010, has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years in the year of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violating road traffic laws at the Cheongju District Court on April 20, 201, and two years in the same court on December 10, 2014 and two years in the suspended sentence of 8 months in the same court.

피고인은 2015. 12. 11. 21:45 경 충북 진천군 진천읍 읍내리에 있는 꼬꼬박사 치킨 앞 도로부터 같은 읍 대학로 우석 대학교 앞 도로까지 약 700m 의 구간에서 자동차 운전면허를 받지 아니한 채 혈 중 알콜 농도 0.145% 의 술에 취한 상태로 C 그랜저 승용차를 운전하였다.

In the instant indictment and the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the driving distance of the Defendant is 70 meters, but in light of the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s statement of the driving distance at the police and the prosecution, and the Defendant’s statement of detention warrant, it is obvious that this is a clerical error.

In addition, as long as one defendant recognizes driving distance as 700 meters, it does not affect the defendant's right of defense.