도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.
2. In our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in favor of the Defendant.
However, since the defendant was sentenced to a 6-month imprisonment for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in 2000, he was sentenced to a 6-month imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2002, and was sentenced to a 6-month imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in 201 and 3-month imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in 2011 and 2013, and was sentenced to a 6-month fine or a suspended sentence on several occasions due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving), and was sentenced to a 8-month imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and committed the instant crime on April 7, 2015 when he was released on April 7, 2015.
The Defendant appears to have repeatedly conducted drinking and non-licensed driving without due care. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration is considerably high.
Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.
In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to have been too unreasonable.
3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.