The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered against the defendant is too unhued and unfair.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by an ex officio prosecutor, the lower court ex officio examined the facts charged in the instant case, and applied Articles 148-2(1)1 and 44(1) of the current Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 subparag. 1 and 43 of the former Road Traffic Act with respect to each of the crimes of “2015 high-class 1575” as indicated in the judgment of the lower court. The former Road Traffic Act was partially amended by Act No. 10790 on June 8, 2011. Article 1 of the Addenda of the Act was enforced six months after its promulgation. According to Article 5 of the Addenda of the same Act, in applying penal provisions to the acts before its enforcement, the lower court stated in the previous provision in the instant charges that “2015 high-class 1575,” and that the Defendant had no longer applied the former Act with respect to some of the above crimes with respect to which the former Act had been amended by Act No. 1018, Jun. 14, 20111.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor appealed against the whole judgment of the court below, and the court below rendered a single sentence on the ground that the crime of "2015, 1575, 1323" and "2015, 1323" among the facts charged in the instant case where the ground for ex officio reversal exists is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below reversed the whole judgment of the court below in accordance with Article

Criminal facts

Criminal facts and the summary of evidence recognized by this court are criminal facts of the original judgment.