도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant in consideration of the following circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower judgment.
In addition, even if examining the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as shown in the argument of this case, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.
In addition, drinking driving and driving without a license are highly likely to be criticized in that the driver himself/herself knows it, as well as the possibility and risk of the accident.
In addition to the criminal records, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2001, and this is the 5th drinking driving, and the blood alcohol concentration level of the instant case is also high.
Furthermore, in 2002, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment due to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) in April 14, 2003, a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving) in December 10, 2003, a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving) in 2009, a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving) in 2009, a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving) in April 18, 2013, and a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving) in 2014.
In light of the driving of a repeated crime even during the period of repeated crime, and the illegal driving behavior of the previous defendant, the risk of recidivism without a license can be said to be serious. Therefore, it is inevitable to hold the defendant liable for a severe liability by imprisonment with prison labor.
3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.