The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, since the court below sentenced 5 million won more than 3 million won among the selective form of the statutory punishment of the crime of this case, since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The lower court, on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, applied Article 152 Subparag. 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act to the Defendant’s crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, which is the Defendant’s crime of this case, and selected a fine among the statutory penalty for such crime, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5

However, the upper limit of the fine for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) is three million won, and the lower court erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle as a result of sentence exceeding the upper limit of the statutory penalty, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the Prosecutor’

3. Since the prosecutor’s appeal of conclusion is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor’s argument of unfair sentencing, and the following is again decided through pleading

[D.] The Criminal Procedure Act Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the Criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are identical to the facts of the crime committed by the criminal suspect room and the summary of the evidence.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 152 subparagraph 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines and the selection of fines for the crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order has a history of serving four times the Defendant was punished for drunk driving, and on January 18, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year of imprisonment on the grounds of the crime of death or injury resulting from dangerous driving, etc., and the Defendant is found to have a heavy burden of driving without a license.

However, it is against the defendant's acknowledgement of the facts charged in this case.