도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months and a fine not exceeding 200,000 won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and other crimes committed by a prosecutor on October 7, 2013 are concurrent crimes, and the judgment of the court below which did not impose a fine on the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving) as of October 7, 2013 is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to concurrent crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In light of the favorable circumstances that the defendant's decision on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing seems to be contrary to his or her wrong recognition, or that the defendant has already been punished five times or more due to the same kind of crime in the last ten years and was punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2008, etc., 1 year of suspended execution, 1 year of community service order and attending order, 2 times or more after being sentenced to a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances and results of the crime in this case, and all of the sentencing conditions in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, the circumstances after the crime in this case, etc., the court below'
B. On September 30, 2013, the lower court held that the prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that the person who violated the Road Traffic Act (driving) and the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) in a regular concurrent relationship should be punished as a more severe violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license), and choice of imprisonment and choice of a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) on October 7, 2013, which are concurrent crimes, and Article 38(1)3 of the Criminal Act provides that “if the punishment prescribed for each crime is a different type of punishment other than imprisonment for life or imprisonment without a prison labor for life, both shall be imposed concurrently.” Thus, the lower court omitted the sentence of a fine despite having to have been imposed concurrently with imprisonment.