The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act from among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or by

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts on the basis of sentencing, incomplete deliberation on the circumstances under which the sentencing conditions are attached, and exceeding the inherent limits of sentencing is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, and an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the above assertion in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant is not a legitimate

On the other hand, the argument that the court below erred in applying Article 35 of the Criminal Act, which violates the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy, as a repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, which is an unconstitutional provision against the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy, is alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant as the ground of appeal, or

Furthermore, even after ex officio examination of the criminal law, the provision that aggravated punishment of repeated crime is unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court Order (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2012HunBa262, 374, Sept. 26, 2013). Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.