도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime from the time when the first investigation was conducted, and the Defendant committed a mistake.
In addition, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, attempted to receive the construction cost of boiler installation from the zers, and was committed the instant crime.
In addition, the fact that the father of the defendant died on August 2, 2015 when he was detained by the defendant, that the defendant's health condition is not good, such as receiving an operation to inserting the human public notice board around November 2014, and that the court below's decision was in progress on June 11, 2015 when he committed the crime, it shows that he would not stop drinking driving again after scrapping of the vehicle which was operated at the time of the crime.
However, the crime of this case is that the defendant drives a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.151% of blood alcohol concentration, and the illegality of the act is not less severe.
Furthermore, the Defendant again committed the instant crime even if he/she had been in the period of repeated crime after having been sentenced to eight months of imprisonment by the Daejeon High Court for the same crime on August 23, 2012, and completed the enforcement of the sentence on December 30, 2012.
In addition, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) it is difficult for the Defendant to deem that the risk of re-offending is low, solely for the same crime before the instant crime was committed; (b) it appears that the circumstances favorable to the Defendant had already been reflected in the sentencing; and (c) other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) it is not deemed that the punishment determined by the lower court is too unreasonable.
The defendant's ground of appeal cannot be accepted.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.