The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although a fine is provided for by the misunderstanding of the legal principle as to the operation of a bicycle without a license, the judgment of the court below omitted the fine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of 80 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Legal principles are misunderstanding of the legal principles, and the defendant's driving under the influence of alcohol without a driver's license is a single driving act in light of social norms.

As such, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licenseed driving) are in an ordinary concurrent relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2731, Feb. 24, 1987, etc.). The court below selected and punished imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-driving) which is a more serious crime under Article 40 of the Criminal Act, and thus did not concurrently impose a fine.

Even if there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. As long as the Defendant was sentenced to suspension of indictment on the grounds of drinking or non-licensed driving in March 2015, the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000 due to a non-licensed driving in August 2015, and a fine of KRW 3 million due to a non-licensed driving in October 2016, the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant drinking or non-licensed driving, and caused a traffic accident accordingly, is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the Defendant’s violation of the law, the injury of the victim is relatively heavy, and the Defendant agreed with the victim, and the fact that there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment; and (b) there is no other change in the sentencing conditions, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion is with merit.