도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year, a suspended sentence of two years, and a 40-hour compliance officer) declared by the court below is too uncomfortable and unfair.
2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court determined a punishment by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s records of drunk driving; (b) the Defendant’s criminal history against his/her criminal act; and (c) the Defendant’s act of not driving under the influence of alcohol again while going against the criminal act (the Defendant is under counseling with the psychiatrist and pharmacologic treatment to prevent recidivism).
In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unfasible, even if the lower court’s sentencing was considered in light of all of the conditions of sentencing
The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.