교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (the imprisonment for eight months, the suspension of execution for two years, and the order to attend a law-abiding lecture for forty hours) is too unhued and unreasonable; and
2. The Defendant was punished by a fine on two occasions in 2014 due to drunk driving, and was punished by a fine on account of a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in 2017.
Nevertheless, in the state of high level of drinking, the driving is in excess of 60 km and is in excess of 130 km.
The victim suffered injury to the victim of the instant accident.
On the other hand, the defendant shows his attitude to reflect his wrongness in depth.
The degree of injury of the victim is not much severe, and the victim does not want to be punished against the defendant by making a smooth agreement with the victim.
In addition to the previous convictions of the above three times of fine, the defendant does not have any other previous convictions.
In addition, even if considering the various sentencing factors shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age, living environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and criminal records, and the following sentencing guidelines, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.
The prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is difficult to accept.
The criteria for suspended execution of traffic crimes [Unlawful Grounds for Illegal Witnesses] In the case of a minor injury, if the illegality of the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents is serious, there shall be no criminal records of the same criminal record (a fine of not less than five years) (a fine of not less than three times) and no criminal record of the suspension of the execution of imprisonment without prison labor or more severe half of the year
3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, as the “Road Traffic Act” in the third nine pages of the lower judgment is apparent that it is a clerical error in the “former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018)”, the ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.