The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The sentence (1.5 million won of a fine) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unfluent and unfair.

Ex officio determination of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is a crime falling under Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the statutory penalty is stipulated as imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than one year or a fine not less than three million won but not more than five million won. The lower court, which selected a fine, sentenced to a fine of not less than 1.5 million won.

However, since the lower limit of the applicable sentences for the instant crime is KRW 3 million, the lower court should have sentenced the said sentence to the Defendant without any legal reason for mitigation, but the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a punishment that deviates from the scope of the applicable sentences by omitting the sentence, and thus, the lower judgment was no longer maintained in this respect.

The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence recognized by this court shall be as shown in the respective columns of the judgment below.

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act seems to be against the crime of this case and to have been repented. The defendant is expected to improve his character and behavior as a young young person of 23 years of age, the defendant is a primary offender, and the defendant's economic situation is good.