The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in this case, violation of the Road Traffic Act.

1. The sentence of the original court (six months of imprisonment) shall be too vague and unfair.

2. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the part concerning the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the instant charges is a crime falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents. Since the lower court made an expression of intent not to punish the Defendant of the victim G at the lower court (K, which stated to the effect that the G is the owner of the air conditioner in this case, does not want to be punished against the Defendant), the lower court, despite the fact that the public prosecution should be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, was pronounced guilty of the above charges,

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

Criminal facts

On May 14, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. on November 5, 2008 by the same court on the same crime, etc. on the other hand, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1 million for a fine of KRW 1 million in the same court on December 16, 2010, and the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime in the same court on December 16, 2010. On June 28, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months in imprisonment for the same court on the same crime, etc.

1. On December 4, 2013, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) at least twice as above, and the Defendant is under the influence of alcohol at least 0.180% of the blood alcohol concentration without obtaining a driver’s license of a motor vehicle on or around December 4, 2013.