도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. The following circumstances are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant’s driving distance is relatively not much long; (b) the Defendant’s business entity and its employees appear to have economic difficulties due to the detention of the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s family and employees want to take a preference against the Defendant.
However, in 2017, the Defendant was punished eight times for the same crime, including the Defendant who was under the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for drinking driving in 2017. Nevertheless, the Defendant committed the instant crime only when eight months have passed since the end of the period of the said suspension of execution. Considering the criminal records as above, the Defendant’s awareness of compliance is very weak and thus high to risk of recidivism, and the Defendant’s horses that reflect his mistake are difficult to believe, and the degree of blood alcohol content of the Defendant at the time of the instant crime is 0.148%, and other factors of sentencing as expressed in the present argument, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive for the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor.
Therefore, the sentencing of the court below that sentenced the minimum punishment within the scope of the punishment that sentenced the defendant to discretionary mitigation cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.