도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
1. The sentence of the court below (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination, the court below decided that the defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for a repeated crime after choosing imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the influence of sound driving). The crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under the influence of sound driving) is a crime falling under Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the statutory punishment is one to three years. Here, even if repeated crime is aggravated and discretionary mitigation, the scope of the punishment is 6 to 3 years, and the judgment below was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by imposing a sentence that deviates from the scope of the punishment.
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, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.
Criminal facts
The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted 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 (1) 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 confessions and reflects the instant crime, and that the blood alcohol concentration level at the time is very high and that the instant crime did not cause an accident due to the instant crime, etc. However, there are no circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances. However, the Defendant has the history of having been punished several times for the same kind of crime in the past, as well as for the crime of injury.