도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The judgment below is reversed,
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted by this court, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on January 6, 2012, and was provisionally released on August 14, 2012 during the execution of the sentence, and the remaining term of imprisonment has expired on October 7, 2012, and can be recognized that the crime of this case was committed within three years thereafter. Thus, the court below, even though it is obvious that the crime of this case should have been committed as a repeated offender under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, was omitted, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this regard.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above ground for reversal ex officio is based on the grounds as seen above.
【Discied Judgment】 The facts constituting a crime and the summary of evidence recognized by the court are identical to the facts stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, thereby citing them as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (2) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;
1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant already committed the instant crime despite the fact that he had been sentenced three times to punishment due to drunk driving, etc., and again, committed the instant crime. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was extremely high at 0.275% in alcohol concentration.
Furthermore, the crime of this case constitutes a repeated crime and it is inevitable to punish the defendant accordingly.
However, the fact that the defendant supports his/her mother and is placed in an difficult economic situation, and the age, character, character, environment of the defendant.