The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, in the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court on September 28, 2012, sentenced a suspended sentence of 2 years, community service, 240 hours, and 40 hours of law-abiding driving lecture to 10 months in prison for the violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and faithfully performed the community service order. However, even though the original case should have been punished before the case, it did not constitute a concurrent treatment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The eight-month imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, even if the public prosecution in this case was not brought before the pronouncement of a judgment in the case of violation of the Road Traffic Act which was previously punished, even though the defendant was unable to be tried concurrently with the above case, in light of the circumstances leading up to the institution of the public prosecution in this case, the prosecutor cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of significantly deviating from the discretionary power by arbitrarily exercising the authority to institute a public prosecution (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1273, Jul. 10, 1998). In addition, even if two or more separate cases were instituted against the same defendant separately, the court does not necessarily have to make a combined judgment and make a judgment at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2354, Nov. 4, 194). The defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the mistake in recognizing the instant crime; the Defendant’s primary exploitation at the time of the instant crime does not seem to have been significantly significant; there was no record of having been sentenced to imprisonment for the same crime; and the instant crime is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on October 6, 2012) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive.