The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (No. 1: fine of 3 million won, and fine of 3 million won: fine of 200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated when the judgment below was found to have been reversed ex officio due to the consolidation, but the judgment below should not be reversed ex officio due to the consolidation, notwithstanding the consolidated examination decision as to the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with regard to the crime committed on December 29, 2018 and the violation of the Road Traffic Act established on March 29, 2018 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with regard to the crime, regardless of the consolidated examination decision, since the punishment of the court below should be determined separately from the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed) in the judgment of the court below as stated in the judgment of the court below and the date of the crime on January 23, 2019.

B. According to the records of the second instance judgment, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment on December 21, 2018 by the Seoul Central District Court 2018 Godan6954, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 29, 2018 on the grounds that the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act was in the concurrent relationship between the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) for which judgment became final and conclusive on December 29, 2018 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (driving). As such, inasmuch as the crime of violation of the second instance judgment is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the crime of mitigation or exemption of punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant should be sentenced to punishment after

3. It is reasonable to respect the judgment of the court of first instance where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court of first instance on the assertion of unfair sentencing on the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant has a history of having been punished three times due to drunk driving, and the Defendant without a license even during the suspended execution period due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act.