특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the order to attend a compliance driving 40 hours) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, under the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, was found to have been negligent on the part of the Defendant, by having been investigated or having been sentenced to a fine repeatedly on several occasions and several occasions in a short period, on the part of the Defendant, due to (i) the operation of a vehicle with no mandatory insurance; (ii) the continuous operation of the vehicle with no mandatory insurance is high; (iii) the need to punish the Defendant by causing a traffic accident; (iv) under favorable circumstances; (iv) the degree of injury to the victims of the instant traffic accident; and (v) the degree of damage to the damaged vehicle; and (v) the Defendant was negligent in the traffic accident of the instant case.
Considering the fact that it has not been confirmed, that there has not been excessive criminal records, the sentence against the accused was determined by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, including the age, sex, environment, and circumstances leading to the crime of the accused.
As above, the sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above conditions of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court as it is. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentencing is unfair because it is too too un
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.