특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치사)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. The court of the court below of the violation of Acts and subordinate statutes sentenced the defendant to suspend the execution of the above punishment for five years while sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment, which violates the provisions of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment, and five years of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. According to the records, on September 9, 2020, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all the charges, including violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and sentenced the Defendant to three years and six months, and suspended the execution of the above sentence for five years, and rendered a decision of correction to correct the “three years and six months” of the above decision as “three years” on September 11, 2020.
However, the court of the court below sentenced the defendant to a limited term for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death) and mitigated punishment pursuant to Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the scope of the sentence under the law against the defendant is "two years and six months of imprisonment" and where the court below sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence, it appears that the defendant was able to choose within the scope of "three years of imprisonment from two years and six months of imprisonment". Thus, the decision of the court below rendered on September 11, 2020 cannot be deemed to fall under "when it is obvious that there was any erroneous calculation, entry or other similar errors in the court records", which is the reason for correcting the decision of the court below under Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and thus the decision of the
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in violation of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the prosecutor's appeal pointing this out is justified.
3. Accordingly, the prosecutor's argument of the misapprehension of the legal principle is with merit. Thus, the decision of the court below is without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing.