도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) although there was a history of punishment for the same crime; (b) the Defendant appears to have never shown any doubt when committing the crime in this case; (c) even if he was tried on January 29, 2020 due to a drunk driving on March 21, 2020, even though he was under trial on January 29, 200, he inflicted four victims injury due to a drunk driving on March 21, 202; and (d) the Defendant repeatedly drives without a license without a license; and (c) the Defendant continues to do so without a license without a license even though he did not have a driver’s license; and (d) the Defendant appears to have failed to agree with the victim F.
However, it appears that the Defendant did not repeat the crime of this case, such as treating the vehicle used for the crime of this case by recognizing his mistake, and there seems to be some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the crime in the case of drunk driving among the crimes of January 29, 2020. In the case of the crime of this case, it appears that the court agreed smoothly with the victims of three other names except the victim F, and some of the circumstances to consider the living environment of the Defendant appear to be favorable to the Defendant.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and changes in circumstances after the sentence of the lower judgment, the lower court’s sentence seems to be somewhat unreasonable.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows.
[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of
The laws and regulations;