도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The judgment below
Criminal Disturbance 2 through 5 "Defendant on January 15, 2015."
The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the punishment imposed by the court below (ten months of imprisonment) is too excessive and unfair, but in full view of various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in this case, it is not recognized that the punishment imposed by the court below is too excessive and unfair, and the above argument is without merit.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below’s order of summary amounting to KRW 5 million was issued at the Jeju District Court on January 15, 2015 due to a crime of violating road traffic laws (drinking driving), and on June 19, 2015, the same court was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment for a violation of road traffic laws (drinking driving) and was released on May 13, 2016 and passed on June 23, 2016 during the execution of the sentence. < Amended by Act No. 13374, Jun. 23, 2016>
“The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for six months on January 24, 2014 due to a violation of road traffic laws at the Seoul Central District Court, and on June 19, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for six months on the grounds of a violation of road traffic laws at the Jeju District Court, which became final and conclusive during the period of the suspended sentence on June 19, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive during the period of the suspended sentence, and was released on May 13, 2016 and the remaining period of the suspended sentence passed on June 23, 2016.
It is evident that the erroneous holding of office is clear, and the summary of the evidence of the judgment of the court below is not omitted after the "written reply to inquiries, such as criminal experience," in the third conduct, and since it is evident that the "Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 High Order 7412" was omitted, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.