The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios and unreasonable sentencing) is that the instant crime was committed during the period of suspension of execution due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the period of suspension of execution has not yet lapsed, and thus, the lower court, even though the instant crime was disqualified from the suspension of execution, was unlawful.

In addition, the sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, probation, and community service order) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “Where a sentence is imposed on a crime committed during a period of three years after the sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment was finalized or exempted, the execution of the sentence shall not be suspended.” In this case, “a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment” includes not only the sentence, but also the case where a suspended sentence is sentenced.

Meanwhile, according to the records, the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution on July 27, 2012 by the Incheon District Court on the grounds of the violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 4, 2012, and the crime of this case was committed on May 14, 2013. Thus, the crime of this case is obvious that the crime of this case was committed before the lapse of three years after the completion or exemption of the execution from the time when the judgment of suspended execution of imprisonment became final and conclusive, and as the sentence was maintained as the period of suspended execution, it constitutes a case where it is impossible to render a judgment of suspended execution again under the above provisions.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for the suspension of execution and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since the court below imposed a suspended sentence on the defendant.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is justified, and thus, the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing.