도로교통법위반(음주운전)
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 fact that the Defendant appears to recognize and reflect the instant crime, and that there is a family member responsible for the Defendant’s livelihood should 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 same kind of crime several times, the fact that driving is going to the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he was subject to suspended execution, and that the degree of drinking is considerably significant, the nature and the crime cannot be deemed to be light.
The above circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.
In full view of the above circumstances, in light of the applicable sentences and relevant sentencing cases, there is no circumstance that the lower court’s sentencing is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or that it is unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s sentencing as it is.
The circumstances alleged by the Defendant are.