The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court and the first instance court in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of

In addition, in light of the records, the prosecution against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death and Injury resulting from Dangerous Driving) is arbitrary and cannot be deemed to have reached an abuse of the right to prosecute. Thus, the assertion that this part of the indictment is illegal cannot be accepted

Meanwhile, Article 5-11 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be deemed as a unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of clarity in the principle of no punishment without law (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2008Hun-Ga1, May 28, 2009). Therefore, the argument that the above provision is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in incomplete deliberation as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged in this case is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant's ground for appeal or the court below did not consider it as being subject to ex officio.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.