The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the court below did not defer the execution of sentence against the defendant, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which sentenced 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service, and 40 hours of attending the law-abiding driving lecture for one year of imprisonment to the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, two years of social service, 80 hours of social service, and 40 hours of law-abiding class) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It shall be interpreted that the sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment provided in the proviso of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act includes not only the sentence but also the case where the sentence of suspension of execution becomes final and conclusive. It shall be interpreted that the sentence of a crime committed during the period of suspension of execution falls under the requirements prescribed in the above proviso when a sentence of a punishment is sentenced. It shall be interpreted that the sentence of a punishment is limited to the case where the suspension of execution already becomes void or cancelled, and that the sentence remains in effect without the lapse of the period of suspension of execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6196, Feb. 8, 2007).

According to the records, on September 5, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution on the grounds of grave excavation in the Seocheon Branch of the Daejeon District Court on September 5, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 13, 2013. On November 29, 2013, the Daejeon District Court was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years of suspended execution, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 17, 2014.

The Defendant committed the instant crime on October 24, 2014 during the period of suspended execution after the judgment became final and conclusive, and as long as the period of suspended execution is still in force, the Defendant constitutes a person who is disqualified for suspended execution under the proviso of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act with respect to the said crime.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the defendant to one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for suspended execution.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is with merit.