교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended execution in August, and two years of community service order 240 hours in community service order) that the court below rendered is too unfasible and unreasonable.
2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court considered the Defendant’s negligence as causing the death of the victim due to (i) the Defendant’s breach of the duty to maintain speed limit and the duty of advance payment in extenuating circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant; (ii) the fact that the Defendant’s negligence was serious; (iii) the victim’s bereaved family members did not reach an agreement with the victim’s bereaved family members; and (iv) the lower court made a genuine effort to recognize and reflect his/her
In addition, considering the fact that there was no criminal history prior to the instant crime, the vehicle involved in the accident was involved in the comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and the victim was negligent in the occurrence of the accident, such as unauthorized crossing of the accident, the defendant's age, sex, occupation, family relation, etc., the punishment against the defendant was determined by comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the records, such as the defendant's age
The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above sentencing conditions and the various sentencing conditions stated in the investigation before the judgment of the lower court, and there is no special change in circumstances to assess the sentencing of the lower court when it comes to the trial.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit, since the court below's punishment is too unfilled and it is not recognized that it is unfair.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.