도로교통법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The court below sentenced the defendant to dismiss the prosecution on the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged against the defendant, and sentenced the defendant guilty on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (a person without a license). As long as the prosecutor appealed only on the guilty part, the part of the court below's dismissal of the prosecution against the defendant in the judgment below becomes final and conclusive after the lapse of the period of appeal, the scope of the court below's judgment shall be limited to the conviction part of the court below.
[The Prosecutor stated the scope of appeal in the petition of appeal as “in whole,” but only claims an unreasonable sentencing on the grounds of appeal, and the grounds of appeal are arguing only an unreasonable sentencing on the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving). Thus, the Prosecutor appealed only on the charges of violating the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving), which is the convicted part]. 2. The above sentence imposed by the lower court on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.
3. The defendant has many records of punishment for the violation of the Road Traffic Act or the violation of the Road Traffic Act.
On February 7, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jeju District Court on the following grounds: (a) on February 15, 2018, the judgment became final and conclusive on February 15, 2018; and (b) on February 4, 2010, the Defendant is not liable for such violation.
① However, the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime to be committed in the urgent mind that he would have to attend a funeral ceremony after hearing a large amount of punishment, and there are circumstances to consider the circumstances in which the Defendant was driven, ② the Defendant has been punished twice due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving). However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had a habit of unlicensed driving even before about 15 years, and ③ the vehicle driven by the Defendant at the time of the instant crime.