도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor, three years of suspended execution, three years of probation, two years of probation, 240 hours of community service, and 40 hours of taking courses) that the court below sentenced is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant’s crime of drinking alcohol in this case is six times, and the Defendant’s crime of drinking alcohol in this case is very high level to 0.223%.
However, the lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances (the fifth drunk driver since around 2001, the blood alcohol concentration high, the recent previous years of drinking driving was committed during the grace period after having been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to the occurrence of an accident involving unlicensed driving and escape; the last nine years after having been sentenced to a fine in 2010; the fact that there was no previous conviction for more than nine years after having been sentenced to a fine; the fact that a person was not subject to a fine exceeding a fine due to drinking driving; the support for two daughters after divorce; and the fact that the person is a recipient of basic living).
In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unfasible, even if the lower court’s sentencing was considered in light of all of the conditions of sentencing as
The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.