The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because of excessive punishment of a fine of three million won imposed by the court below on the defendant.

(2) On the first day of the trial, the court below explicitly withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts in light of the contents and methods of the crime of this case, etc. on the first day of the trial. 2. The defendant's assertion is somewhat unreasonable, considering the following circumstances: (a) although the nature of the crime of this case is deemed to be less unfavorable to the defendant; (b) on the other hand, the defendant confessions the crime of this case and states that his mistake is divided in depth; (c) the current economic situation seems not to be sufficient; (d) the defendant seems not to reach recidivism again; (e) the defendant is a first offender with no penal power; and (e) other circumstances that are the conditions of the sentencing of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, character, character, intelligence and environment, motive and consequence of the crime, driving distance, drinking distance, circumstances after the crime, family relations, health conditions, etc., the defendant's argument is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (minimum circumstances);

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

1. The argument of this case, including each other’s circumstances, in the part of “decision on the grounds for appeal” for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.