도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and six months, suspended execution three years, and 40 hours of an order to attend a compliance driving lecture) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s given that new sentencing materials related to the favorable circumstances in the trial were not submitted, and the reason for sentencing alleged by the prosecutor appears to be the circumstances that have already been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment by the lower court.
In addition, examining the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the lower court's punishment against the defendant is deemed unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.
3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.