교통사고처리특례법위반(치상)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment for up to eight months, suspension of execution for two years, community service and order to attend a law-abiding driving course for up to 120 hours) that the court below sentenced is too unreasonable.
2. The appellate court’s judgment is reasonable to respect the sentencing condition in comparison with the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.
The sentencing of the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in full consideration of the various favorable circumstances to the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to change the sentencing after the lower judgment.
In particular, the defendant asserts that the punishment imposed by the court below is too heavy, on the ground that the defendant is working as the captain of diving machines, and that if it is impossible to carry out operation due to the implementation of community service order, it would affect the livelihood of the shipowner, crew, and their families.
However, considering various sentencing conditions, the lower court appears to have sentenced to a suspended sentence on the premise that the community service order, etc. is implemented. However, it is not impossible for the lower court to implement the order to the extent that it does not interfere with the livelihood, since the difficulty or inconvenience arising in the course of implementing the order may be borne by the Defendant, and the community service order, etc. may be implemented through weekends, holidays, etc.,
In addition, examining the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the record of the crime in this case, it is not deemed that the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.
3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per
However, the lower court’s second page “ January 18, 201.” is a clerical error in the statement of “ March 21, 201,” and the lower judgment’s third page 19,20 roads.