The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case concerning the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) from among the facts charged in this case, only the selective fine or the penal detention shall be provided for in subparagraph 2 of Article 154 of the Road Traffic Act, and the punishment of this kind shall be imposed concurrently in accordance with Article 38 (3) 3 of the Criminal Act in

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which only sentenced the defendant to imprisonment and did not impose a fine is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affected the judgment.

2. The judgment light, the defendant, while driving a motorcycle under the influence of 0.071% of blood alcohol concentration without a motorcycle driver's license, suffered injury to the victims of traffic accidents while driving a motorcycle while driving a motorcycle, and thus, committed a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license), a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) and a violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Among them, a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) constitute several crimes, and are in a commercial concurrent relationship. The court below held that the above two crimes should be punished as a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) with a heavier punishment pursuant to Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and decided to punish the defendant as a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) with a heavier punishment, there is no ground to impose a fine on the defendant separately.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, the application of the law of the court below is clear that the "the point of occupational difference" in the third through fourth is a clerical error in the "the point of occupational injury", so it is corrected to write it in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.