The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentencing of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment below ex officio held that all of the facts in the judgment of this case constituted concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and determined a punishment by taking account of equity in the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. However, according to the records, the date when the judgment was finalized on the facts recorded in the judgment can be recognized as of February 16, 2012. Since the crime of this case occurred thereafter, there is no room to view that there is a concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, it is unlawful for the court below to determine punishment for the crime of this case in consideration of the equity in the case of a judgment at the same time with the crime of the previous conviction under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen earlier. The judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence presented by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for deletion of the first through third of facts constituting an offense. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Act of the provisional payment order has the history of having been punished several times for the same crime. The crime of this case led to the failure to communicate a large amount of traffic for about 50 minutes, or substantial difficulty in traffic flow, causing a large inconvenience to the general public. On the other hand, the defendant actively led the crime of this case on the record.