The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of thirty million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, since the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and the crime of violation of the Guarantee of Compensation for Automobile Damages are the substantive concurrent relationship, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles by selecting a fine on the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and by imposing a fine concurrently pursuant to Article 38(1)3 of the Criminal Act. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the above crimes are judged as an ordinary

B. The punishment of the lower court (six years of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of protection observation) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. The crime of violating the Road Traffic Act by a person who drives a motor vehicle without a driver’s license and the crime of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation by a person who operates a motor vehicle, which is not covered by mandatory insurance, differs from the legal interests and the composition requirements, such as the subject of the act, and thus, cannot be deemed as one of the acts under law

However, the court below held that each of the above crimes is in a mutually competitive relationship.

In light of the above, Article 40 of the Criminal Code applies. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's allegation of misapprehension of the above legal principles is reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles is with merit, and thus, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation and the violation of Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) should be reversed. Since this part of the facts charged and the remaining facts charged are in a substantive concurrent relationship, one sentence should be imposed as to the whole. Accordingly,

Therefore, without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, the judgment of the court below is entirely reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled through pleading.

[Judgment which is used again] criminal facts and facts of crime.