1. All the original decisions shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one year and ten months; and

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to judgment.

This Court tried to consolidate each appeal case against the original judgment.

Since the crimes of each joined case are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment increased according to the example of Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the decisions of the court below that sentenced two punishment could no longer be maintained.

In addition, the prosecutor requested to change the type of the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance in exchange for the purpose of exchanging the name and the applicable legal provision of the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

3. If so, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, since there are grounds for reversal of the above authority, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal Facts [2015No1566 (Consolidated)]

1. The Defendant is a person engaged in driving a Cknif II car.

On March 21, 2014, the Defendant driven the above car on March 12:12, 2012, and led to the two-lanes of the three-lanes in the direction of Park Jong-gu in Seoul, Seoul, to the speed of about 50km in the speed of 869 kilometers in the direction of the beginning of the year, depending on the two-lanes in the direction of Park Jong-gu.

Since there is a place where the center line of yellow solid lines is installed, a person engaged in driving duty has a duty of care to prevent accidents in advance by operating safely without more than the center line.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to commit it and gets a two-lane in the opposite opposite lane due to the negligence of driving in the median line.