도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant shows an attitude against his/her mistake while fully recognizing the crime, and the degree of the injury inflicted on the victim due to a traffic accident is insignificant.
Currently, it is not easy for the defendant to live or treat in the detention facility to the extent that it is not easy for him to do so.
However, the defendant is driving a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance in a drinking condition, and caused a traffic accident by breaking the central line, and the crime is not good in light of the content of the crime.
Many of the criminal records, including the criminal records of probation, have been punished for the same drinking crime (two times of the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor and two times of the fine), and in particular, with the sentence of the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor due to driving without the license, the crime of this case has been committed again while the suspended sentence is
It was impossible to receive a letter from traffic accident victims, and the damage was not recovered.
The amount of alcohol concentration (0.146%) among bloods at the time of crime is also high.
The court below sentenced the above punishment against the defendant in consideration of the above favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the defendant.
In addition, even if the materials submitted in the trial of the party are considered, there is no meaningful change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below.
In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relation and social ties, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.