도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable when considering various circumstances such as driving circumstances and the health of the defendant. On the other hand, the prosecutor is deemed to be improper because it is too unfasible in light of the content and nature of the instant crime, the criminal records of the defendant, etc.
2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the depth thereof; (b) the Defendant’s health is not good; and (c) the driving distance is relatively short.
However, around May 198, the Defendant has been sentenced to punishment for the same crime such as violation of the Road Traffic Act at least 10 times. In particular, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit, in full view of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, the background of the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., and all other factors of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the fact that the Defendant and the Prosecutor did not commit the instant crime even though they were sentenced to a suspended sentence for 8 months on April 12, 2012 due to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.
3. In conclusion, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.