The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The decision of the court below on the grounds of appeal is unfair because the punishment (2.5 million won penalty and the cost of lawsuit) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

According to Article 148-2(2)2 of the Road Traffic Act, the statutory punishment for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act is “a fine of not less than six months but not more than one year or a fine of not less than five million won.” The statutory punishment for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) is “a fine of not more than three hundred thousand won or detention” pursuant to Article 154(2) of the Road Traffic Act. The statutory punishment for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act is “a fine of not more than three hundred thousand won or detention” pursuant to Article 154(2) of the Road Traffic Act, and the punishment for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) heavier than a fine of not more than three million won following regular concurrence is to be imposed on the defendant. Thus, in order to sentence a fine of less than three million won against the defendant, the amount of punishment shall be mitigated pursuant to Articles 53 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred in violation of the statutory minimum limit by omitting the reduction of amount in the application of statutes while sentencing a fine of KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, and the following is again decided after pleading.

【Grounds for another judgment】 The facts constituting an offense and summary of evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are identical to the facts stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, thereby citing them in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 154 subparagraph 2 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1.Article 70(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.