도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment and fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant recognized all of the crimes and repented of the mistake.
In the future, it will not be allowed to drive under the influence of alcohol or without a license.
The defendant shall support the elderly who suffers from diseases, such as chronic reticule, etc.
Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.
However, before committing the instant crime, the Defendant was punished by imprisonment for three times with prison labor, such as drunk driving, etc. In particular, in 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months due to the crime of drunk driving, etc., and the execution of the said punishment terminated on August 19, 2010.
In 2012, 1.5 million won was sentenced again to a crime of drinking driving.
The crime of this case is a crime of drinking driving more than six times from June 7, 2012 to October 31, 2012 during the period of repeated crime, and is a crime of unlicensed driving more than four times, and the crime of this case is very bad in that the defendant in three times has caused a traffic accident.
At the time of the instant crime, the blood alcohol concentration level is very high from 0.151% to 0.22%.
In light of these circumstances, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.
In full view of these circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is not deemed to be unfair because the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.
With respect to driving under influence of alcohol as stated in the judgment below Nos. 1 and 2, the court below applied Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act instead of Article 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which are the Acts and subordinate statutes of the public prosecutor's indictment, but the fact that driving under influence of alcohol as stated in the judgment of the court below is stated in the first and second