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 (unfair sentencing) that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of one year and 80 hours, and the order to attend a law-abiding driving lecture for forty hours) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the court below erred by omitting the judgment on the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) in the application of the Act and subordinate statutes, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. If so, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

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

Application of Statutes

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (a repeated driving of drinking), Article 152 subparagraph 1, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes (it shall be between the crimes of violating the Traffic Act of the person who committed February 7, 2017 and the same person's violation of the Traffic Act of the same person);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act was that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine on several occasions from around 201 due to drinking or non-licensed driving. On November 7, 2016, the Defendant again went on January 7, 2017 when he was indicted for driving under the influence of drinking and non-licensed driving under the influence of drinking, and again went on to drive under the influence of drinking and non-licensed driving on January 7, 2017. In the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant was subject to a mandatory insurance even after he was sentenced to a suspended sentence.