The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, was punished on three occasions (two times of imprisonment, and one fine) for a crime similar to the crime of this case committed during the same period. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in violation of the principle of non-existence of interest.

B. Sentencing unfair criminal defendant has already been punished three times for similar criminal facts, and the punishment imposed by the court below (3 million won) is more severe than when he/she was tried at the same time, and it is unfair that the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was found to have committed a crime related to the transfer or acquisition of the license for private taxi transport business with respect to the current 20 cases. Of that, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of 13 cases from August 2013 to November 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 17, 2015 (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Da9519 decided April 1, 2015), ② The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 44 months from July 1, 2012 to October 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 21, 2015 (amended by Incheon District Court Decision 203Da31465 decided July 27, 2015).

Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides for “the principle of prohibition of double punishment”. This is a constitutional declaration of “the principle of absence of one time” that the same case cannot be tried once a judgment becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the State’s fundamental rights cannot be repeatedly exercised the penal authority against the same criminal act.