도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a prison term of one year, a suspended sentence of two years, a probation, an order to attend a law-abiding lecture of 40 hours, and an order to provide community service of 300 hours) declared by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. In a case 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendant to the above punishment by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake was recognized and reflects his depth; (b) the Defendant was finally punished for the same kind of crime; (c) a considerable period of time (7 years); and (d) the drinking water (0.069%) was not severe; and (d) the Defendant was punished for multiple times of drinking driving; and (e) the Defendant was punished for multiple times, even if having been sentenced to a sentence, and (e) the nature of the offense is very poor.
In addition, even if the materials submitted in the trial court are considered, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared with the court below.
In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unreasonable because it excessively goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, 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.