The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before determining the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, this part of the facts charged of this case’s case’s violation of the Road Traffic Act concerning car rental cars is an offense falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.

However, according to the Defendant’s automobile accident accident agreement, it can be acknowledged that the agreement under the name of K, the owner of the instant car rental car, was submitted to the lower court on July 25, 2012, which was prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and thereby, K expressed its intention not to be punished by the Defendant. Thus, the lower court should have dismissed the prosecution against this part of the facts charged pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted of this part of the facts charged. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for dismissing the prosecution in violation of the Road Traffic Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Meanwhile, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and imposed one punishment on the Defendant on the charge of concurrent crimes with the remainder of the charges. As long as the lower court should render a judgment on the violation of this part of the Road Traffic Act, the entire lower judgment cannot be maintained.

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