특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. The Defendant has already been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act several times of appeal by both parties. Nevertheless, the Defendant is not well aware of the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes, and thus is highly likely to be subject to criticism. The degree of personal and physical damage caused by the instant traffic accident cannot be deemed minor, and the act of lending the means of access to electronic financial transactions may be abused as means of other crimes, such as singinging fraud, which cause serious social harm, and thus, there is a need to strictly punish the act.
However, the court below recognized the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which was partially denied at the court below for the first time. The victims do not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victims of the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the fact that the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant in relation to the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act at the court below for the first time that the above victims do not want the punishment of the defendant.
In full view of the above circumstances and various sentencing factors revealed in the course of the pleadings of this case including various circumstances considered in sentencing, it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is reasonable and the prosecutor's argument is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reasonable in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.