The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is punished for the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act in each judgment of the court below.

1. In light of the substance of the grounds for appeal in this case, the punishment imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

According to the records of this case, the defendant, in addition to the final judgment of the first head of the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the final judgment”), was sentenced on September 17, 2010 by imprisonment of three years with prison labor at the Ulsan District Court on September 17, 2010 and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 9, 2010 (hereinafter “the first final judgment”). Among each of the crimes of this case, the crime of violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act among each of the crimes of this case is between the crimes of this case and the first final judgment, and the crime of violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “the first final judgment”). The punishment should be determined in consideration of equity in the case where each of the crimes of this case is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crimes of this case and the second final judgment.

However, the lower court stated only the previous convictions of the first final and conclusive judgment in the first head of the crime, and tried not only the omission of the previous convictions of the first final and conclusive judgment, but also the specific contents of the first final and conclusive judgment in the record, and did not find any trace in view of equity in the case of the judgment at the same time, and sentenced a single sentence as to each of the crimes of

Therefore, the court below cannot be deemed to have sentenced to punishment for each of the crimes of this case in consideration of equity and cases where the above crimes for which judgment has become final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act are concurrently judged, and since such measures of the court below are erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles concerning concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal is unfair.