도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of compliance instruction) is too uneased and unreasonable;
2. In 2007 and 2011, the Defendant was already punished two times or more due to drunk driving.
At the time of the crime of this case, the level of driving was high, and the distance of driving was also driven.
On the other hand, the defendant shows his attitude to reflect his wrongness in depth.
All of those who have been punished for drunk driving are relatively long ago.
There is no more serious criminal offense than a fine for a defendant.
It seems that the defendant is now performing his/her obligations in good faith and is able to renew his/her obligations in the course of the individual rehabilitation procedure.
In addition, even if the defendant's age, living environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, etc. are considered, the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
The prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is difficult to accept.
3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, as the “Road Traffic Act” in the second sentence of the lower judgment is apparent that it is a clerical error in the “former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018)”, the ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.