도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal: misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing
A. The summary of the argument of misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The Defendant drank 2 illness during two hours at the time indicated in the facts charged of this case, and was measured by drinking after about one hour from the end of the act of drinking, and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant had driven a car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.233% at the time of the act of drinking. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the Defendant cannot be said to have driven a car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.23%. 2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, since the repeated offense under Article 35 of the Criminal Act was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, it is merely that the punishment may be aggravated arbitrarily by up to two times for the person who intentionally committed the crime within three years after the completion of or exemption from the execution of the sentence. Thus, the repeated offense of violation of the Road Traffic Act, such as the facts charged of this case, should be applied by reducing the degree of intention.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the defendant is a repeated offender.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the allegation of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court determined that the Defendant driven a car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.233% at the time of the instant facts charged. Examining the lower judgment by comparing with records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, as alleged by the Defendant, as otherwise alleged in the lower judgment. 2) As such, a repeated offense is punished as a repeated offense (Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act), and the punishment for a repeated offense is prescribed for such crime.