도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, observation of protection, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service in six months of imprisonment) is too uneasy and unfair.
2. The Defendant already driven a vehicle while driving the vehicle at the height of 0.142% of alcohol content during his blood in spite of the fact that the Defendant had been subjected to suspended sentence two times or more due to drinking, including five times of suspended sentence, and the instant crime may lead to a serious accident that the Defendant caused a traffic accident involving another vehicle and was discovered in the course of its handling. This is not the case where the Defendant’s liability is less than that of the crime.
However, in full view of the fact that the defendant committed a crime, and that the defendant does not repeat again while disposing of the vehicle used for the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unfair.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the same crime is obvious that it is a clerical error in the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the bottom of 1 of the judgment of the court below, since it is a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act).