도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and 4 months) by the lower court (e.g., imprisonment and 1 year and 4 months) 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and does not repeat a crime, such as scrapping of a vehicle driven at the time of committing the instant crime.
However, the blood alcohol concentration (0.341%) of this case is very high, and the defendant has already been punished three times (two times of fine and one time of suspension of the execution of imprisonment) due to drinking driving, drinking driving is in need of strict punishment in consideration of the social danger and harm of the crime threatening the life and body of himself/herself and others, and there is no special change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below after the decision of the court below was made, and taking into account the defendant's age, occupation, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime was committed, and circumstances after the crime was committed, and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as equal or similar incidents and the equality of sentencing, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below to reduce the amount is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.