All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 3 million, and the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of KRW 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the first and second judgment was combined at the appellate court, the facts constituting the crime of the first instance judgment cannot be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to the latter concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which became final and conclusive on November 2018, as stated in its reasoning, and thus, the grounds for appeal by each of the lower judgment are examined.

B. Although the Defendant had been sentenced to criminal punishment several times due to the past violation of the Road Traffic Act, the Road Traffic Act, and the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment again on August 2018 with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury), the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving) and the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

In the case of the judgment of the court of first instance, in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the above Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which became final and conclusive by the judgment of the court of first instance, the sentence was sentenced to a mitigation of fine in the summary order against the defendant

In the case of the judgment of the court below, while considering the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of the judgment of the court of second instance and committed the same traffic crime in only one month after the execution of the sentence is completed due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the court below sentenced the minimum of the statutory punishment to the defendant.

C. In light of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, even if considering the family relationship of the defendant, the punishment of the court below 1 and 2 against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusions Nos. 1, 2.