We reverse the judgment of the court below.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and by a fine of 450,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of Defendant 2’s judgment (two years of imprisonment, a fine of KRW 150,00) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In misunderstanding the legal principles, “a person who has violated Article 44(1) on at least two occasions” in Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act does not mean a case where there is a final disposition on a violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act due to a conviction due to a drunk driving, a final summary order, or a suspension of indictment due to a final conviction or a summary order or a suspension of indictment, etc., but the Defendant did not constitute “two times of violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act” on the ground that he was not subject to a final disposition due to a drunk driving.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a year, fine of KRW 300,00,00 for the first instance judgment of sentencing (a year, a fine of KRW 300,00) is too uneas

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

The first and second judgment against the defendant was rendered, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the second judgment against the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant, and this court decided to jointly examine the second appeal cases.

Each crime of the first and second judgment against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the first and second judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the party's deliberation, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is to be examined below.

3. As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Road Traffic Act’s purpose is to ensure safe and smooth traffic by preventing and removing all dangers and obstacles to traffic on roads. As the Road Traffic Act was amended by Act No. 10790 on June 8, 201, Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act prescribing a statutory punishment differentiated depending on the frequency of drinking, etc.