도로교통법위반(무면허운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (6 months of imprisonment) of the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable (the Defendant stated that only unfair sentencing was committed on the first trial date). 2. Circumstances favorable to the Defendant are as follows.
The defendant confessions the crime of this case and repents.
On April 11, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) by imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act on April 19, 2017, and the said judgment becomes final and conclusive on April 19, 2017. The Defendant’s crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and the instant crime constitute concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In determining the punishment of the instant crime pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the sentence should be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where the Defendant was judged simultaneously with the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) finalized.
Circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are as follows:
The Defendant committed the instant crime again before the judgment becomes final and conclusive, immediately after the judgment on the instant crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving).
In 204, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine twice due to one-time, one-time, one-time, two-time, and two-time, one-time, one-time, one-time, and two-time, one-time, one-time, one-time, and two-time, one-time, one-time, one-time, and another driver without a license.
One of the crimes of driving light alcohol in 2015 is the blood alcohol concentration of 0.138%.
In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, career, environment, background and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and the previous theories, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.