The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that sentenced a punishment exceeding the statutory penalty.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The term "crimes punishable by imprisonment without prison labor or heavier" as provided by Article 35 (1) of the Criminal Act refers to crimes punishable by imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment with prison labor for a high term or for a limited term, and where the punishment selected among the punishments prescribed by the crime is a fine, it shall not be subject to the aggravated punishment of repeated crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do1018, Jul. 27, 1982). In such a case, the court below sentenced 6 million won exceeding the fine of 3 million won, which is the highest statutory penalty, by selecting the crime of this case as a fine and adding repeated crimes. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below’s sentencing is unlawful.

Therefore, we accept the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's unfair argument about sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

[Re-written judgment] The facts constituting an offense and the summary of evidence recognized by the court and the summary of evidence are as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 152 of the relevant Act and Articles 152 subparagraph 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act, and the selection of fines concerning the crime;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined to the workhouse, not only have the record of having been punished several times for the same crime, but also has been released by serving four months for the same crime.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected his driving distance.