특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant had a history of criminal punishment several times because he/she included a criminal punishment and a suspended sentence for the same crime, that the defendant had a history of criminal punishment on July 19, 2014, that he/she had escaped from a motor vehicle accident due to drinking driving on or around July 13, 2014, and that he/she had a drinking driving again around July 13, 2014, but all of the crimes in this case are recognized and wrong. In the case of the crime in paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment of the court below, the defendant immediately surrenders himself/herself to an investigation agency, the victim of the traffic accident, the victim of the traffic accident, the crime in paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below is relatively low in the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant, the vehicle of the defendant was subscribed to a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, the fact that the defendant had no criminal power during which the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime in 2007, the fact that the defendant supports two children and children of his/her mother, the age, character, character, motive, motive, means and result of the crime, etc.
Therefore, the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.
3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following decision is rendered after pleading
However, the prosecutor shall, in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, rectify ex officio the "0.78%" as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts charged to 0.078%, since it is apparent that he was prosecuted with blood alcohol concentration "0.078%" and such recognition does not have any substantial disadvantage to the defendant's right of defense.
2) The reasoning of the judgment below and the summary of the evidence are stated in this court.