The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In light of the substance of the grounds for appeal of this case, the punishment of the judgment below (the fine of KRW 5,000,000, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the facts charged by the applicable provisions of this case are as follows: the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of four million won on January 24, 2006 due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the same court on August 24, 2006, sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). A person who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the same court on July 25, 2012, and a person who was driving a DNA car at approximately 300 meters from the road in front of the Defendant’s residence in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, to the road in front of Yangsan-si C cafeteria.

With respect to the above facts charged, the prosecutor brought a public prosecution by applying Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act.

B. Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 148-2(1)1 on June 8, 2011) provides that “A person who has violated Article 44(1) on at least two occasions and drives a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 148-2(1) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for at least one year but not more than three years, or by a fine not less than five million won but not more than ten million won.”

However, Article 44 (1) of the current Road Traffic Act and Article 41 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005 and enforced from June 1, 2006; hereinafter the same) have the same obligation to prohibit driving prior to June 1, 2006. In case of violation of Article 41 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act prior to June 1, 2006, it is a question whether it is included in cases of violation of Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act more than twice.

Article 148-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to be interpreted strictly in light of the purport of the principle of no punishment without law.