The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of five million won) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

On September 19, 2018, the lower court stated in the criminal records that “the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on September 19, 2018, and that the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2018,” and sentenced a fine of five million won for the instant crime in which the final judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 2017Ma1075) and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.

However, as to the above final judgment on December 2, 2019, the defendant filed an application for recovery of his right of appeal (2019 early 781) with the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on the grounds of appeal, and on December 5, 2019, the decision of recovery of right of appeal accepting the above application was invalidated, and the final decision became void.

As a result, the final judgment case is currently pending in the Supreme Court.

(2020Do11291). The crime for which a judgment to be sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and the crime committed before such judgment has become ex post concurrent crimes. As seen earlier, it is obvious that the finalized power of the above final judgment cannot be recognized and the crime of this case and ex post concurrent crimes are not in a relationship between the crime of this case and the crime of this case. However, the judgment of the court below is deemed to have a relationship of ex post concurrent crimes, and thus, the judgment of the court below erred by taking into account the equity in the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time by applying the latter part

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

【Reason for the Judgment of the Supreme Court】 Summary of the facts constituting a crime and evidence