The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and two months) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

According to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. at the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on Jan. 8, 2020, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on Jan. 16, 2020 (Ui Government High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High High Court Decision 2019Da3043). Each of the crimes of this case is in concurrent crimes with the above crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Miju) for which judgment became final and conclusive, and in accordance with the latter part of Article 37 (1) of the Criminal Act, a sentence shall be determined in consideration of equity with the case where a judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the above crime.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[C] The summary of the facts constituting a crime and evidence admitted by this court is added to the first head of the judgment of the court below as follows: "The defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on January 8, 2020), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 16, 2020" in addition to adding "the text of the judgment (Korean Government High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High Court High 2019No3043)" as evidence of the previous offense as stated in the summary of the evidence as evidence for the previous offense as stated in the summary of the evidence. Thus, all of the judgment below are the same as stated in each corresponding column of the court below, and it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 of the Criminal Code for Handling Concurrent Crimes.