특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치사상)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine whether, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the defendant for an ex officio judgment, the sentencing of the court below is within the scope of applicable sentencing under law.
Among each of the crimes of this case, the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Road Traffic Act from among the crimes of this case shall be punished by the punishment heavier than the punishment for the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act from which the punishment is imposed. Next, each of the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death or Injury resulting from Dangerous Driving) shall be selected as stated in the judgment of the court below. As stated in the judgment of the court below, the above two crimes are concurrent crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death or Injury resulting from Dangerous Driving) for which the judgment becomes final and conclusive on June 1, 2013 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and if the punishment is mitigated pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not less
In other words, since the above two crimes are in substantive concurrent relations, the punishment shall be aggravated within the scope of the total sum of the long-term punishments of the above two crimes under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which are heavier than the punishment, and the minimum of the punishment should be based on the punishment prescribed under the Road Traffic Act. Thus, the scope of the punishment under the law of the court below which increased the punishment by concurrent crimes is more than 6 months but not more than 6 years and 6 months.
However, without applying discretionary mitigation in the application of statutes, the lower court erred by sentencing the Defendant for a period of four months imprisonment with prison labor, thereby escaping from the scope of a statutory penalty, and in this respect, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.
3. The judgment of the court below is the above reasons for ex officio reversal.