The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The sentence (700,000 won) that the court below rendered by the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, according to the general contents of the case of the Supreme Court, which examined the evidence ex officio at the trial of the party, and the text of the judgment, each of the records of the judgment, the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months at the Busan District Court on January 25, 2018, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 5, 2018. As above, the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) and the crime of this case, etc., for which the judgment became final and conclusive, are related to concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment of this case is determined at the same time in consideration of equity and cases where the judgment is to be rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is no longer upheld.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

The substance of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by this court is the first head of the judgment of the court below, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a year and six months on January 25, 2018 and the judgment on May 5, 2018 became final and conclusive on May 25, 2018.

“A previous conviction in the judgment of the court below” is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the addition of “a copy of the general contents of the case and the text of the judgment of the court below” in the space where the evidence is used. As such, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of

Application of Statutes

1. Operation of automobiles, of which mandatory insurance is not mandatory, pursuant to the relevant Article of the Act, Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation and actual property damage), Article 46 (2) 2 and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act (the operation of automobiles which are not mandatory insurance);