도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) of the lower court’s sentencing (e., one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the
In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,
(2) In light of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to the above sentence on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning of sentencing, imposed the above sentence on the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing, and the Defendant led to confession and reflect on a criminal act, and the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial of the lower court are sufficiently considered while rendering the sentence at the lower court, and the Defendant had been sentenced two times prior to the instant case, and had been sentenced to a suspended sentence due to a crime of refusing to take a alcohol test, and once he/she was under the suspended sentence for the said suspended sentence, the lower court’s judgment does not have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and the lower court’s judgment does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.