도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the community service work of 160 hours, and the lecture of compliance driving of 40 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognized and reflected the crime of this case, and that the defendant has no criminal record of the suspension of execution or more due to the same kind of crime.
However, even though the Defendant had been punished twice due to drinking driving, repeatedly committed the instant crime, which is the same kind of crime, and the Defendant violated the signal while driving a vehicle while drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case. Although the police officer demanded the Defendant to stop, there was a circumstance in which the Defendant’s police officer neglected the demand to stop the vehicle and attempted to stop the vehicle, and the police officer stopped the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the Defendant’s blood level is not too low to the degree equivalent to the revoked driver’s license at 0.104%, and other various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, environment, sex, motive for the commission of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.
Meanwhile, the Defendant sought a reduction or exemption if the community service hours are excessive in light of his/her health condition. However, in light of the contents and previous convictions, etc. of the instant crime, the Defendant needs to have an opportunity to reflect his/her behavior and recover the sense of social responsibility through community service. Although the community service order for 160 hours is likely to somewhat obstruct the Defendant, the Defendant appears to be able to sufficiently implement it within the extent that it does not interfere with his/her daily life through consultation with the protective observation office after the conclusion of the judgment, and there are no special circumstances for reduction or exemption.
3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.