도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant is against all of the instant criminal acts, and once again disposes of the vehicles currently driven at the time of each of the instant criminal acts, as an indication that he/she would not drive drinking and non-licensed driving.
Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.
However, at the time of drinking driving, alcohol concentration in the blood of the defendant was very high to 0.173%.
The Defendant had the record of criminal punishment on several occasions prior to each of the instant crimes, and, in particular, on April 17, 2015, committed each of the instant crimes of the same kind during the period of suspension of execution, even though he/she was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) on April 17, 2015, and on July 3, 2015, committed each of the instant crimes of the same kind during the period of suspension of execution, even though he/she was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution.
The current Road Traffic Act stipulates that a person who has violated the prohibition clause on drinking more than twice in order to prevent the driving of drinking, which threatens the safety of road traffic, and to realize the awareness of such a violation, shall be punished more strictly in the case of driving again, and it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly.
Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.
In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court.