도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment for a term of eight months suspended, forty hours of attending the law-abiding lecture, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) declared by the court below is too unfford and unreasonable.
2. 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence by taking into account the Defendant’s criminal records, blood alcohol concentration (0.087%) and other factors.
In full view of the fact that the Defendant had been subject to two times punishment due to drinking driving, but there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, there is no new circumstance or normal relation to the change of the lower court’s punishment in the trial court, and other sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or is too unjustifiable.
3. In conclusion, 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.