도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, a suspended sentence of two years, and an order to attend a law-abiding class of 40 hours) that the court below made is too unfford and unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the said punishment by taking account of the following: (a) although the Defendant had been punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as “driving”), the Defendant had three times the history of having committed the instant crime; (b) it reflects the mistake while recognizing the instant crime; and (c) said the Defendant would not drive under the influence of alcohol again.
Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared to the court below, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the sentencing of the court below is deemed unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.