The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment is an unfavorable circumstance that the defendant runs a vehicle with the same kind of criminal records subject to suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the following: (a) there are many traffic-related criminal records against the defendant; and (b) there are the same criminal records subject to suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant in the party trial by mutual consent with the victims, and the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the court below's punishment seems to be somewhat unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes related to the crime, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of failing to take measures after the accident);

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;