The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below sentenced the defendant to six years of imprisonment with prison labor, and the court below's punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court sentenced the Defendant to six months of imprisonment with prison labor, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court sentenced the lower court to the lower court’s punishment lower limit.

2) The sentence of six-month imprisonment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Conditional judgment: The judgment of the court below is effective by the sentence and does not take effect by the entry of the original of the judgment (see Supreme Court Order 81Mo8, May 14, 1981). According to the records, the original judgment contains a provision that the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six years, but the presiding judge of the court below can recognize the fact that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six months at the fifth public trial of the court below, which is the date on which the judgment of the court below is sentenced. Thus, the sentence of the court below is considered to be six months.

3. The statutory penalty for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which the lower court found guilty of the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than five years pursuant to Article 5-3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the statutory penalty for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is a fine of not less than six months but not more than five million won, pursuant to Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, even if the defendant choose the type of punishment most favorable to the defendant and the punishment for concurrent crimes and the reduction of the amount of punishment are imposed, the scope of punishment is at least two years and six months of imprisonment (no reason for mitigation other than the reduction of amount of punishment is found).

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced six months of imprisonment with labor lower than the lower limit of the applicable sentencing, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The prosecutor's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

4. Conclusion.