특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion on the grounds that it is somewhat different from
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have the attitude of recognizing and reflecting each of the instant crimes; the equity between the case where the Defendant was tried at the same time as the offense of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) which became final and conclusive on June 8, 2018 as indicated in the lower judgment; and the fact that the vehicle driven by the Defendant is covered by a comprehensive insurance policy that is favorable to the Defendant ought to be considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant.
However, in light of the fact that drinking driving may infringe on the life and body of not only the driver but also the citizens using the road, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act on several occasions, and even though it was controlled by drinking driving around February 2018, the crime of this case is deemed to be the crime of this case, and the degree of drinking and the degree of drinking is considerably significant, it cannot be deemed that the crime of this case and the crime of this case are light.
The above circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.
Considering the above circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing in the trial, in light of the applicable sentences and related sentencing cases, the judgment of the court below is reasonable in its discretion.