The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than four months and by a fine not exceeding 300,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of suspended execution and a fine of 300,000 won for four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below is a crime falling under Article 5-3 (1) 1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and the statutory penalty is a fine of not less than one year or not less than 5 million won but not more than 30 million won. Thus, in order to select a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the above crime and then sentence a sentence of less than one year to the defendant, a discretionary mitigation should be made pursuant to Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act. Meanwhile, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) as stated in the judgment of the court below shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 300,000 won or penal detention. Thus, in case of a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, a punishment shall be imposed concurrently pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act.

However, the judgment of the court below, which selected each fine as to the above two crimes and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of April and a fine of KRW 300,000 for the defendant without discretionary mitigation pursuant to the former part of Article 37 and Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the selection of punishment and concurrent punishment, and in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of punishment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any further in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, since the above grounds for reversal ex officio.