특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(운전자폭행등)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the risk of committing the crime of violence) and the records of punishment for the same kind of crime are two times, the prosecutor of the lower court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment (a year of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of probation, community service order, 80 hours of community service order, 40 hours of order of alcohol violence therapy, 40 hours of order of education).
It is too unfortunate that is unfair.
2. The crime of this case, while the defendant getting on and off a taxi in operation by the victim C, was called a door to the defendant who tried to open the head door of the taxi. While taking a bath, the crime of this case was committed by two descendants, and assaulting the victim who was driving in one time with the breath of the victim's breath with the breath by using breath, which could cause a traffic accident. The crime of assault by the driver of this case was committed by the defendant. The defendant was a dangerous act that may cause a traffic accident. The defendant committed the same crime, even though he had been punished by a suspended sentence of 208 and a fine of 3 million won in year 201, and again, the defendant needs to keep the breath of the defendant who again commits a similar crime without the awareness of the crime, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.
However, in full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, health conditions, character and behavior, environment, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be adequate and too unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor’s above assertion is not reasonable, since it is not recognized that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable, inasmuch as it is not recognized that the Defendant’s punishment is too insignificant, and the degree of assault was relatively insignificant, and the victim did not want to punish the Defendant, and the Defendant voluntarily is expected not to repeat the sentence even after receiving the hospital treatment for alcohol addiction.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.