도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.
In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to the sentencing in the trial of the lower court were mostly revealed in the oral proceedings of the lower court, and there is no particular change in the situation in the sentencing criteria after the sentence of the lower court was rendered.
The defendant driving a drinking again during the period of repeated offense due to drinking, and driving a non-license again during the period of questioning of the suspect before detention, because his whereabouts is unknown without being present on the date of questioning of the suspect before detention.
In addition, considering the defendant's criminal records, blood alcohol concentration, age, sex behavior and environment, criminal records, circumstances after the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too large and the defendant exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
No person can be determined.