교통사고처리특례법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment without prison labor for eight months and the suspension of execution for two years) of the lower court is deemed to be too untile and unfair.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.
In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.
Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as an element of sentencing in the trial of the lower court, including the fact that the victim suffered serious injury, such as the permanent loss of 12% high-ranking labor force on the left-hand side due to the ground of the instant accident, such as the cutting off of the left-hand and the cutting off of mination, etc., after which the victim suffered serious injury due to the accident in this case, and that the defendant wanted to be punished for severe punishment, most of the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor as an element of sentencing in the trial of the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines after the sentence
Defendant
At the time of entry into the intersection of the vehicle and the vehicle of the victim, the speed victim proceeded at the speed of 80 to 90km/h at the time of the accident in the police statement on November 12, 2015.
The accident place is a road with a speed of 60km/h speed limit on speed.
A victim is a victim in light of the circumstances of the collision and other accidents.