특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
The judgment below
The part on the crime No. 2299 of the High Order 2017 is reversed.
Defendant 2017 High Order 2299 decided January 1, 200
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the lower court rendered (each of the offenses listed in the order of 2000, the order of 2017, the order of 2299, the second order of 2299: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year suspension of execution, three years with prison labor for one year suspension of execution, and a crime listed in the order of 2017, the second order of 2299: six months with prison labor) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to each of the crimes listed in the judgment below 200 senior group 200, 2017 senior group 2299 senior group 2, the conditions of sentencing have not been changed compared to the judgment of the court of first instance, and where the sentencing of first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the aforementioned legal principles, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and the sentencing grounds revealed in the course of the argument of this case were considered to have been excessively excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
It does not appear.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
[1] Article 32(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”) provides that the Financial Services Commission shall review whether one of the largest shareholders of a financial company subject to the pertinent provision (hereinafter “persons subject to examination of qualifications”) does not violate the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and the Act on Punishment of Tax Evaders, and other Acts and subordinate statutes related to finance, and shall meet the requirements prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter “requirements for the maintenance of qualifications”).
In paragraph 4 of the same Article, the Financial Services Commission finds, as a result of the examination under paragraph 1, that the person subject to examination of qualifications fails to meet the requirements for maintaining eligibility.
, if it is deemed that it may order the person subject to examination of eligibility to take certain measures to ensure the soundness of the management of the financial company.
set forth.