도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, and even if he/she had been re-offendered, the summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended sentence, probation, compliance driving lecture, and alcohol therapy (or 80 hours of imprisonment with prison labor for two months, two years of suspended sentence, and 10 months of imprisonment) that the court below sentenced is too un
2. The instant crime is deemed to require the Defendant to strictly punish the Defendant, who committed the same offense in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol of 0.105% of alcohol; (b) the Defendant driven a C 300-meter level; (c) the act of drunk driving is required to be strictly prohibited for the order of road traffic and the safety of traffic visitors; and (d) the Defendant was punished three times as fines for the same crime but has re-offending again; and (c) the Defendant was punished for the same offense.
However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be adequate and too unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion is without merit, given that the Defendant’s punishment was not imposed three times for the same crime, and there is no record of the crime beyond the suspension of execution due to drinking driving, and thus, the effect of punishment as a suspended sentence is expected to be imposed along with probation, etc., along with probation.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.