교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, observation of protection, community service and 160 hours, 40 hours of lecture attendance order for compliance driving) is too uneasible and unfair.
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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, the lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, the degree of injury to the victim, and the confession and reflectness, etc., of the sentence. Furthermore, the lower court did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine after the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for up to 17 years prior to the enforcement of the fine, and all other circumstances, such as the motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., of the lower court’s sentencing, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.