특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant cannot be deemed to have reached a difficult condition at the time of the instant accident, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts by finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case.
B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s findings of fact are as follows, i.e., ① the Defendant paid the instant accident at around 22:00 after the end of 21:30 on the date of the accident, i.e., the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (b) entered the Defendant’s circumstantial statement of the driver at the home; (c) although the walking condition is indicated in the Defendant’s circumstantial statement of the driver at the home; (d) the speech state is divided into two parts; and (c) there was a numerical value of 0.122% of the drinking result; and (c) D’s witnessing the instant accident site was not accurate that the Defendant returned to the suspect; (d) focused on the snow; (g) the Defendant was driving by the driver at the home; and (g) the Defendant was stopped and stopped by the driver at home; and (g) there were many other vehicles moving to the intersection; and (g) it is difficult for the Defendant to normally drive it.
I think I think.
In full view of the fact that the Defendant stated that he was unable to drive normally due to influence of alcohol, the Defendant’s above assertion by the Defendant cannot be accepted, as it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim due to occupational negligence.
B. The fact that sentencing is unfair is that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime is extremely unfavorable.
However, the fact that the defendant did not have the same power as the defendant, and that the criminal history of repeated crime is also a crime of different species, that he received the letter from the injured person, that he had been detained for a long time, and that he had a life in custody and is against the driving itself