All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant 1 is punished by a fine of KRW 80,00,00 for the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the first instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Not only at the time of the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance but also at the time of the crime in the judgment of the court of second instance.

B. Each decision of the court below on the defendant's sentencing (the first decision of the court below: the fine of KRW 80,00,000, the second decision of the court below, the second decision of the court below: the imprisonment of KRW 1,00,000, and the second decision of the court below as to the first crime)

2. The first and second court rendered a separate judgment after examining the case ex officio. The defendant filed an appeal against all the above decisions, and the court decided to consolidate the above appeal cases.

Each of the first and second original judgments against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and must be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of a limited term of punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, each of the above original judgments is no longer maintained.

In addition, since driving without a driver's license is an act of driving without a driver's license and a crime of driving without a driver's license and a crime of driving without a driver's license are crimes of regular concurrent crimes, the judgment of the court below of first instance is judged to have a relation of concurrent crimes between the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (free driver's license) and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (free driver's license) as of August 7, 2012 and the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (free driver's license) as of June 6, 2013 and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (free driver's license) under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous

Furthermore, the judgment of the court below of the second instance is recognized as a fact even though the defendant was not sentenced to a fine of two million won for the violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daejeon District Court Seosan on November 6, 2006 due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in the judgment of the court below (the judgment of the second instance is K if the court below was the criminal record of the defendant) and the defendant.