도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and one year and six months) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. In light of the fact that the Defendant had five times or more as a drunk driving, who was sentenced to a punishment due to without a license and a climatic driving, was sentenced to the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, and that the Defendant’s drinking driving of this case is recognized as a 112 report, etc., which seems to cause considerable traffic danger, are disadvantageous to the Defendant.
However, there are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as: (a) the Defendant appears to reflect in depth the instant crime; (b) the Defendant was engaged in volunteer activities for a long time in a sense that he was well aware of the above sentence; (c) the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime was relatively low; and (d) the occurrence of traffic accidents was not occurred; and (c) the Defendant’s family members and employees continuously want to take the Defendant’s wife.
Examining the aforementioned circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health conditions, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.
3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by the defendant is again ruled as follows.
[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting the crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;
1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;
1. Determination of sentencing prior to Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act on discretionary mitigation.