도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant, taking into account (i) the fact that the Defendant, under favorable circumstances, had the history of criminal punishment repeatedly for driving under the influence of alcohol and driving without a driver’s license despite the fact that he/she drives a motor vehicle without a driver’s license; (ii) the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle even around November 2016, caused a traffic accident; and (iii) the Defendant, upon being sentenced to a two-year line of a suspended sentence in April 2017, repeated driving without any particular crime during the period of the suspended sentence; and (iv) the degree of drinking alcohol at the time of the crime, considering the fact that the Defendant was aware of his/her mistake and did not have any additional damage; and (iii) the distance of driving
As above, the lower court determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and also seems to have been reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court.
There is no special change in circumstances that may change the punishment of the court below in the trial.
In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, as well as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.
3. The appeal by the defendant is justified.