도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s above sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The defendant appears to have the attitude of recognizing and opposing a crime, and the fact that the defendant was not involved in an accident while driving alcohol but rather caused an accident is more favorable to the defendant.
However, in 203, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to drinking, drinking, and non-licensed driving in 2004, and was sentenced to a fine for violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation in 2014, and was sentenced to a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation in 2014. In 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for non-licensed driving during the period of repeated offense and was sentenced to a fine in 2017. In other words, the Defendant was sentenced to a imprisonment for six months on April 13, 2017.
In this regard, the defendant, after completing the execution of the above punishment, was released on May 9, 2017, operated a motor vehicle which is not covered by liability insurance with drinking and non-licenseed condition on the same twenty days.
In addition, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's request for the measurement of drinking, and the police box tried to assault the police officer, and the police officer took verbal abuse to the police officer, etc., and the attitude after committing the crime was bad.
In addition, the defendant was arrested even though he was aware that he had been present at the police.
Although the Defendant alleged that the vehicle was controlled while driving in order to satisfy the president of the auto-scrapping at the time of the instant case, there is no evidence supporting the claim, it seems that there was another way to move the vehicle for scraping.
In light of the above circumstances, since the court below's punishment is deemed to be unfair because it is too unfilled and unfair, the prosecutor's above assertion is reasonable and the defendant's status.