도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one hundred and twenty hours of community service order, and forty hours of order to attend a lecture) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect it.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the fact that there was three times of punishment due to drunk driving and refusal to measure alcohol, the fact that a crime was committed during the period of suspension of execution is disadvantageous, or that there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment because new sentencing data were not submitted in the trial, and since 2010, there was no record of being punished due to drinking driving or refusal to measure alcohol, and the fact that a person drives a vehicle with low risk compared to a motor vehicle, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfilled.
3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.